SINGLETAX 


AND  ITS 


CLEVELAND  CHAMPIONS 


Letters  and  Answers  Published  in  the  Catholic^Pefiletin, 
Cleveland,  Ohio,  May,  1915  to  May,  1916. 


WHERE  WE  DISAGREE: 

"Does  the  Singletax  Club  of  Cleveland,  Ohio,  hold  the 
doctrine  of  Henry  George,  that  private  ownership  in  land  is 
*a  bold,  bare,  enormous  wrong?'  " 

ANSWER  given  by  O.  K.  Dorn,  Treasurer  of  the  Single- 
tax  Club:  "Yes,  we  believe  that  private  ownership  in  land  is 
a  bold,  bare,  enormous  wrong." 

"Does  the  Singletax  Club  of  Cleveland,  Ohio,  as  regards 
the  question  of  ownership  in  land,  side  with  Henry  George  or 
with  Pope  Leo  XIII?" 

ANSWER  of  Mr.  Dorn — "We  emphatically  side  with  Hen- 
ry George  in  his  controversy  with  Pope  Leo  XIII." 

(See  pages  12-^) 


PREFACE 


On  May  28,  1915,  the  Catholic  Bulletin  republished  a  summary  of  an  ad- 
dress given  by  the  Rev.  F.  S.  Betten,  S.  J.,  of  St.  Ignatius  College,  Cleveland, 
at  the  Convention  of  the  Catholic  Union  of  Ohio  (D.  R.  K.  Staatsverband),  at 
Celina,  in  1913.  The  slngletaxers  of  Cleveland  evidently  felt  alarmed,  because 
the:'  immediately  began  to  bombard  The  Bulletin  office  with  letters.  For 
more  than  a  year  nearly  every  number  of  The  Catholic  Bulletin  reprinted  one 
of  these  singletax  communications  with  a  suitable  reply.  Thus  a  consider- 
able nft*Bber  of  the  so-called  arguments  for  singletax  and  of  its  various  de- 
structive features  were  discussed.  Masters  of  Political  .and  Social  Economy 
consider  this  the  broadest  and  most  interesting  debate  on  the  subject. 

Following  suggestidiis  from  many  quarters,  we  have  gathered  this  cor- 
respondence in  the  pre^'^nt  pamphlet.  Frequently,  however,  we  do  not  re- 
produce the  entire  lettei*.  but  only  those  sections  which  call  for  an  answer. 
We  even  omit  one  or  another  letter  entirely,  because  the  answer^  is  too  evi- 
dently contained  in  other  sections  of  the  pamphlet.  (The  originals  are  kept 
on  file  in  our  office.)    For  the  convenience  of  our  readers  we  generally  place 

y        the  ans^'er  immediately  after  the  paragraph  to  which  it  belongs, 
f 

A  detailed  index  will  enhance  the  usefulness  of  this  pamphlet  for  methodi- 
cal study. — Editor  Catholic  Bulletin. 


(Copyright  1916  by  L.  G.  Wey) 


J  <^  ^    S  Oi  doz,  ^  :i.  3.  0 


2 


INDEX 


REFERENCE  IS  TO  PAGES 

ABSORPTION  of  landvalues  by  individuals  15,  20,  21 

CATHOLICS.  Can  they  be  singletaxers?  15 

CLEVELAND   SINGLETAX   CLUB'S   Creed  13 

DISPARITIES   IN  WEALTH  15 

DOG  TAX  compared  with  singletax  16 

EQUALITY  OF  MEN  very  limited  7,  8,  30 

EXTORTION  result  of  singletax  12 

GREGORY,  ST.,  "a  singletaxer,"  against  LEO  XIII  18,  21 

HORSTMAN,  BISHOP,   "a   singletaxer"  32 

.lUBILEE  YEAR  in  Mosaic  code.  10 

LAND  SPECULATION  possible  under  singletax  11,  14,  17,  25; 

importance  of  land  speculation  26;  land  companies  own  whole 

counties  .   14 

LANDVALUES  increased  in  Cleveland  19;  owners  of  them  20;  site-value.  .25 
LEO  XIII  Encyclical  on  the  condition  of  the  working  classes  4;  Henry 

George's  Open  Letter  to  him  7,  15,  16,  17,  18,  27 

MOSES  "a  singletaxer"  ...10 

OCCUPANCY  8 

OWNERSHIP,  in  what  it  does  not  consist  4;  original  title  5;  not  neces- 
sarily bas'ed  on  labor  8;  never  recognized  by  the  things  "owned  5: 
many  things  cannot  be  owned  8;  land  ownership  in  the  Mosaic  code.  .10 

PEW   RENT   and   single  tax  25 

'»OLICE  and  fire  protection,  expenses  for  20 

POPE.  The  pope's  authority  in  matters  of  taxation  17;  never  against 

sound  reason  15,  17 

PUBLIC  AUTHORITY'S  right  to  restrict  property  14,  16 

PUBLIC  OPINION  v/s  the  popes  22 

PUBLIC  SQUARE  lots  as  example  8 

SITE  VALUE   25 

SINGLETAX  explained  4;  On  whom  it  will  fall  or  will  not  fall  most 
heavily  6;  effect  on  workingmen  7;  on  farmers  6,  29;  on  residents 
24;  on  industrials  24;  is  a  remedy  against  all  ills  14,  31;  how  to 

be  introduced  7,  16 

SKYSCRAPERS   6,  12 

SOCIAL  QUESTION  in  the  first  place  religious  17,  18 

TAXES.  Title  of  public  authority  to  demand  them  3;  "too  many  taxes" 
17;  first  requisite  in  taxes  is  justice  17;  inposed  according  to 
what  is  likely  to  happen  19;  failure  of  taxpayers  to  receive  their 

money's  worth   20 

TEN  COMMANDMENTS  not  given  by  the  pope  22 

TITLES  of  landed  property  to  be  set  aside  by  Henry  George  7,  11 

VALUE.  Areas  of  same  value  to  pay  same  tax  amount  11,  12 


SINGLETAX. 

(Summary  of  the  adcJress  by  F.  s.  Betten  S.  J.) 

Henry  George,  an  American  economist,  who  died  in  New  York,  in  1897, 
is  the  chief  advx>cate  of  singletax,  so  much  so  that  he  is  often  called  its  "in- 
ventor." 

He  maintained  that  the  soil  can  never  become  the  property  of  any  in- 
dividual. The  community  (state  or  municipality)  alone  can  own  land,  and 
this  privilege  is  so  exclusive  that  the  state  cannot  part  with  it  in  favor  of  any 
individual  or  private  corporation.  If  any  person,  he  says,  ever  claimed  land 
as  his  own  and  demanded  that  this  claim  should  be  respected  by  others,  he 
pcted  as  a  usurper,  and  what  he  called  his  right  was  not  better  than  the 
right  of  a  pickpocket  to  a  stolen  watch.  His  very  words  are:  "Private  pro- 
perty in  land  is  a  bold,  bare  enormous  wrong" — (Progres's  and  Poverty, 
VII,  3.) 

Consequently,  if  justice  were  to  take  its  course,  the  state  would  have  to 
dislodge  all  the  "so-called  owners,"  without  indemnifying  them,  because 
their  estates  never  belonged  to  them.  The  best  way  to  do  this,  it  occurs  to 
him,  is  to  force  them  to  pay  the, full  amount  of  rent  for  what  they  are  pleased 
to  call  their  own  into  the  public  treasury  in  the  shape  of  taxes.  He  proposes 
to  abolish  all  other  taxes.  Thus  we  have  one  tax,  the  tax  on  land  values 
cnly,  a  SINGLETAX, 

Now  landed  property  of  individuals  is  no  robbery.  The  denial  of  private 
ownership  in  land  is  clearly  against  the  doctrine  taught  by  Pope  Leo  XIII 
in  his  encyclical  "On  the  Condition  of  the  Working  Classes,"  of  May  15,  1891. 
The  Pope  takes  for  an  -instance  a  workingman  who  saves  his  money  and 
finally  succeeds  in  acquiring  a  house  and  a  little  garden.  Then  he  continues*, 
"the  land,  in  such  case,  is  only  his  wages  under  another  form;  and,  conse- 
quently, a  workingman's  little  estate  thus  purchased  should  be  as  completely 
•at  his  full  disposal  as  are  the  wages  he  receives  for  liis'^labor.  But  it  is  pre- 
cisely In  such  power  of  disposal  that  ownership  obtains,  w^hether  the  pro- 
perty consists  of  land  or  chattels." 

This  leaves  no  doubt  at  all.  As"  little  power  as  the  state  has  over  the  hard- 
earned  wages  of  the  worker,  so  little  power  has  it  over  the  land  now  in  his 
possession. 

According  to  Henry  George  that  workingman's  estate  does  not  belong  to 
the  workingman  at  all;  it  remains  the  inalienable  property  of  the  civil  com- 
munity; and  while  he  leaves  to  the  laborer  the  full  disposal  of  his  wages,  the 
lot  or  garden  which  is  bought  with  them  always  remain  at  the  full  disposal 
of  the  state,  no  matter  what  claim  the  laborer  imagines  to  have  to  them. 

We  prefer  to  follow  Pope  Leo  as  our  guide. 

This  sfettles  the  question  for  us,  if  there  was  a  question  at  all.  But  let  us 
see  what  kind  of  arguments  Henry  George  offers  for  his  revolutionary  state- 
ment.  Sound  reasoning,  of  course,  can  never  lead  to  such  absurdities. 

Henry  George's  argument  is,  in  short,  this: 

The  ^oil  cannot  be  produced  by  human  labor;  but  only  such  things  as 
are  produced  by  human  labor  can  be  the  object  of  private  ownership;  there- 
fore, the  soil  cannot  be  the  object  of  private  ownership.  (The  question  is 
only  about  the  original  title;  he  readily  grants,  that  those  titles  are  just,  by 
which  an.  article  rightfully  owned  is  transferred  to  somebody  else,  as  dona- 
tion or  purchase  or  inheritance). 

The  pen,  he  s'ays,  with  which  I  write  is  mine,  because  it  was  rightfully 
owned  by  the  manufacturer  or  the  laborer,  who  transferred  their  right  suc- 
cessively to  the  wholesale  and  retail  dealer,  and  finally  to  me. 

Everything,  therefore,  depends  on  the  proof  for  his  assertion,  that  nothing 
can  become  the  property  of  man  except  by  human  labor. 

Henry  George  bases  his  proof  on  a  fundamental  wrong  conception  of  the 
relation  of  the  owner  to  the  thing  owned.  He  thinks  that  this  relation  is 
something  physical,  something  like  string  or  rope  tying  the  proprietor  to  the 
property.  Such  a  tie,  he  imagines,  is  effected  by  man's  labor.  There  is  no 
such  tie  produced  by  labor  between  the  farmer  and  his  farm,  therefore  the  far- 


4 


mer  cannot  own  the  farm;  but  it  is  different  with  the  carpenter  and  the 
table  he  made,  or  the  gunsmith  and  the  gun. 

Now,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  relation  of  ownership  does  not  consist  in  any- 
thing physical.  There  is  not  physical  tie  between  me  and  my  watch.  The 
relation  of  ownership  cannot  be  perceiyed  by  any  of  the  five  senses,  but  only 
by  the  intellect. 

If  the  absence  of  such  a  physical  tie  is  the  s^gn,  that  there  is  no  owner- 
ship, Henry  George  will  have  to  deny  all  ownership.  There  Is  no  more  con- 
necton  between  the  maker  and  the  product  than  between  the  landowner  and 
his  estate. 

Much  less  than  a  physical  connection  is  there  a  physical  action  and  reac- 
tion between  the  owner  and  the  thing  he  owns.  After  a  watchmaker  has 
finished  the  watch  or  the  gunsmith  his  rifle,  there  is  no  more  action  or  reac- 
tion between  the  two  than  between  the  thing  and  a  thief  who  steals  it.  Labor 
indeed  produces  physical  changes  in  the  things  offered  by  nature;  but  once 
these  changes  are  executed,  action  and  reaction  ceases,  and  the  producer  is  as 
much  a  stranger  to  the  thing  as  if  he  had  never  touched  it. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  from  such  material  notions  of  the  right  of 
property  Henry  Geqrge  arrived  at  very  strange  consequences. 

He  opens  his  attack  by  exclaiming: 

"What  other  right  exists  from  which  the  right  to  the  exclusive  possession 
of  anything  can  be  derived  save  the  right  to  the  right  of  man  to  himself?" 

There  is  indeed  no  other  right  from  which  private  ownership  can  be  de- 
rived. But  this  very  right  works  against  Henry  George.  Just  the  right  of 
man  himself  gives  him  the  privilege  to  settle  where  he  pleases,  without  being 
dislodged  by  another  comer,  supposing  only  that  the  place  is  not  occupied  by 
anybody  else.  Just  the  right  to  himself  demands  that  he  have  the  power  to 
choose  a  place  where  he  may  lay  down  his  head  without  fear,  a  place  where 
he  may  return  the  following  night,  and  if  he  so  decides,  as  often  as  he  pleases, 
without  being  obliged  to  seek  a  new  shelter  every  night.  But  this  is  exactly 
the  right  of  private  ownership  in  land. 

"How  can  man,"  Henry  George  continues,  "in  any  other  way — save  by  la- 
bor act  upon  or  affect  material  things'  or  other  men?" 

Here  we  have  the  logical  sequence  of  his  wrong  supposition.  The 
*  right  of  property  does  not  consist  in  affecting  or  acting  upon  material  tilings. 
Does  Mr.  George  perhaps  even  think  that  the  right  of  property  consists  in  act- 
ing upon  other  men?  Does  he  mean  to  say  that  the  right  of  ownership  con- 
sists in  this  that  I  am  strong  enough  to  keep  thieves  and  robbers  aw-ay  from 
my  property?  A  poor  right  of  ownership!  It  would  be  the  same  as  the  right 
which  the  pickpocket  has  when  he  prevents  me  from  getting  back  my  stolen 
watch,  that  is,  it  would  be  no  right  at  all,  but  simply  the  power  of  the 
stronger. 

"Nature,"  says  Henry  George,  "acknowledges  no  ownership  or  control  in 
men  save  as  the  result  of  exertion." 

Did  it  really  escape  Henry  George  that  ownership  is  never  recognized  by 
any  of  the  things  owned,  whether  they  be  supplied  or  made  by  man? 

Nature,  he^ays,  does'  not  discriminate  among  men.  "Birds  will  not  come 
to  be  shot  by  the  proprietor  of  the  soil  any  quicker  than  they  will  come  to  be 
shot  by  the  poacher." 

No,  but  let  him,  in  his  own  example,  substitute  the  gun  for  the  soil.  Does 
the  gun  acknowledge  any  ownership?  It  surely  does  not.  Whether  it  hits  or 
misses  the  bird  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of  ownership  at  all:  it 
depends  only  and  exclusively  on  the  ability  of  the  person  who  handles  it,  and 
on  its  own  perfection. 

These  instances  will  sjifiice  to  show  how  hazy  and  utterly  incorrect  Henry 
George's  ideas  of  ownership  are  and  how  lamentably  deficient  his  argumenta- 
tion. If  he  proves  anything,  it  is  that  there  is  no  ownership  at  all.  Such 
demonstrations  are  enough  for  him  to  declare  all  landowners  robbers,  and  to 
call  upon  the  people  to  embark  on  a  policy  equivalent  to  wholesale  confisca- 
tion. Henry  George  signally  failed  to  prove  the  injustice  of  private  owner- 
ship in  land.  Consequently  the  measure  he  proposes,  singletax,  is  unjust.  It 
is  a  flagrant  violation  of  rights  that  are  as  general  and  important  as  they  are 

.5 


sacred.  What  can  mankind,  what  can  a  state  expect  of  the  adoption  of  such 
a  measure  but  ruin  and  destruction. 

We  may,  with  a  high  degree  of  certainty,  try  to  forecast  some  of  the  harm 
it  is  liable  to  nork. 

Henry  George  is  very  enthusiastic  about  the  grand  effect  of  his  smgie- 
tax.  "if  I  have  worked  harder  and  built  myself  a  good  house,  while  you 
have  been  contented  to  live  in  a  hovel,  the  tax-gatherer  now  comes  annually 
to  m-ake  me  pay  a  penatly  for  my  energy  and  industry,  by  taxing  me  more 
than  you." 

But  taxes  are  no  tines.  If  I  have  bnilt  myself  a  house,  I  have  a  much 
greater  Interest  in  the  existence  of  public  order  and  safety  than  he  who  calls 
no  house  his  own,  and  it  matters  nothing  whether  this  is  on  account  of  his 
carelessness  or  misfortune.  It  is  therefore*right  that  I,  having  a  greater  in- 
terest in  the  maintenance  of  order  and  safety,  should  pay  a  greater  amount 
into  the  treasury  of  that  institution  which  alone  is  able  to  grant  the  protection 
I  stand  in  need  of. 

Taxes  enable  the  state  to  grant  to  all  members  of  the  community  all  the 
protection,  facilities,  accommodations,  etc.,  which  we  comprise  in  the  words 
public  order.  It  is  therefore  but  natural  that  those  should  pay  higher  taxes 
who  derive  the  greatest  advantage  from  the  existence  of  this  public  order, 
and  who  appeal  more  frequently  to  the  assistance  of  the  public  authority. 
Taking  this  as  a  principle,  It  is  easy  to  see  the  injtistice  which  is  connected 
with  Henry  George's  scheme  of  taxation. 

Accordng  to  him  only  the  unimproved  land  value  is  taxed.  An  acre 
favorably  situated  in  a  city  is  as  highly  taxed  as  another  acre  equally  valuabe, 
no  matter  whether  there  are  buildings  on  it  or  not;  the  factory  that  stands  on 
it  or  the  skyscraper  or  the  cottage  is  not  assessed. 

It  makes  no  difference  either  whether  it  contains  a  coal  mine  or  not, 
whether  It  is  sandy  or  the  most  desirable  wheat  land.  It  is  the  site  only  that 
according  to  him  creates  the  value.   See  letter  II  on  site  value. 

Now  suppose  a  skyscraper  with  its  four  or  five  thousand  people  or  more. 
Alongside  of  it  live  a  few  families  in  modest  houses  which  cover  the  same 
area  as  the  skyscraper.  The  few  families  have  to  pay  the  same  amount  into 
the  public  treasury  as  the  owner  of , the  sl^vsoraper;  and  yet  the  latter  requires 
for  the  safety  of  his  revenue  ten  and  more  times  the  amount  of  police  and 
fire  protection,  and  derives  twenty  times  the  profit  from  the  existence  of  pub- 
lic order.    Is  this  not  a  "bold,  bare,  enormous  wrong?" 

It  is  well  to  remember  what  Henry  George  has  to  say  about  the  effect  on 
the  present  system  of  taxation. 

"The  present  taxes  work  like  a  penalty  on  enterprise  and  industry.  If  a 
man  has  built  a  ship  we  make  him  pay  for  his  temerity,  as  though  he  had 
done  an  injury  to  the  state;  if  a  railroad  be  opened,  down  comes  tbe  tax  col- 
lector upon  it,  as  though  it  were  a  nuisance;  If  a  manufactory  be  erected,  we 
levy  upon  It  an  annual  sum  which  would  go  far  towards  making  a  handsome 
profit." — (Progress  and  Poverty,  Book  IX,  Chapter  1.) 

This,  therefore,  is  the  purpose  for  which  singletax  is  advocated: .  .The 
factory  owners,  the  ship  builders  and  navigation  companies,  the  railroad 
magnates,  oil  kings  and  coal  barons  are  to  make  still  more  handsome  profits 
than  they  have  been  doing  heretofore.  The  millions  they  have  so  far  been 
paying  to  assist  in  defraying  the  expenses  of  government  will  be  turned  into 
their  own  coffers  to  widen  further  the  breach  between  the  very  rich  and  the 
toilers. 

Among  those  injured  there  are  especially  two  classes,  the  farmers  and 
the  workingmen. 

How  is  the  FARMER  to  fare?  Under  the  system  of  singletax gthose  will 
have  to  pay  the  largest  amount  of  taxes,  who  need  the  largest  extent  of 
ground.  Now,  a  manufacturing  company  can  make  gigantic  profit  on  an  area 
of  twenty  acres;  a  farmer  who  owns  only  twenty  acres  is  a  poor  man.  Per- 
haps such  a  modest  farm  of  twenty  acres  immediately  joins  the  premises'  of  a 
factory  that  covers  the  same  area;  if  put  up  for  sale  in  an  unimproved  con- 
dition both  pieces  of  immovable  property  would  bring  the  same  price,  be- 
cause they  are  in  the  same  locality;  consequently  Henry  George  will  write 


6 


the  same  amount  on  both  tax  bills.  But  what  a  diiference  in  reality  between 
the  two  tax  bills.  The  company  may  not  as  much  as  notice  the  expense 
while  it  would  be  oppressive  for  its  neighbor. 

And  which  of  the  two  would  require  more  tire  and  police  protection? 
which  will  make  more  use  of  the  law  courts?  for  whom  will  even  the  state 
militia  be  called  out  to  protect  his  property  in  the  case  of  disturbance?;  for 
whom  will  warships  be  detailed  to  escort  his  floating  riches  in  foreign  waters? 
And  yet  in  the  singletax  country  both  ^parties  pay  an  equal  amount  of  taxes. 
Is  not  singletax  "a  bold,  bare  enormous  v/rong?" 

As  to  the  WORKINGMAN,  it  should  suffice  to  remember  that  aingleUix 
provides  no  way  at  all  for  forcings  the  capitalist  to  part  with  a  fraction  of  liis 
vastly  increased  gain  in  favor  of  his  workers.  It  is  he  that  is  to  have  the 
whole  benefit  of  singletax,  and  he  can  do  with  his  money  what  he  pleases. 
Of  course,  he  MAY  share  it  honestly  with  the  laborer  who  works  in  his  mills 
or  lives  in  his  skyscraper,  but  nobody  can  force  him.  What  capitalism  will 
do,  it  has  shown  in  the  course  of  history,  and  this  history  forebodes  very  evil 
days  for  the  workingman  whom  singletax  has  placed  at  the  mercy  of  the 
millionaire. 

And  where  is  our  workingman  going  to  live?  In  a  skyscraper,  of  course. 
He  has  to  pay  the  same  tax  for  his  little  lot,  whether  there  is  a  one-story 
cottage  upon  it  or  a  ten-story  skyscraper.  So  what  is  more  natural  than  ten 
workingmen  should  band  together,  and,  instead  of  putting  their  dwellings  side 
by  side,  place  one  on  top  of  the  other.  Or  worse  still,  some  enterprising  capi- 
talist will  erect  a  ten-story  tenement  house  and  the  offer  of  low  rent  will  not 
only  amply  reward  his  own  industry  and  thrift  but  will  also  prove  too  tempt- 
ing for  the  workingman  to  be  rejected.  The  ideal  of  the  laborer's  home  is 
the  one-family  house  with  at  least  some  diminutive  share  of  the  earth's  sur- 
face around  it.  This  ideal,  difficult  enough  in  our  days,  will  be  an  absolute 
impossibility  under  the  sway  of  the  singletaxers.  The  singletax  country 
is  the  paradise  of  the  skyscraper. 

It  is  idle  talk  of  the  advocates  of  Henry  George  who  claim  that  the  greatest 
amount  of  the  new  tax  will  fall  on  the  big  cities.  We  simply  ask,  "^Is  it  to  fall 
on  the  capitalists,  the  representatives  of  industry  and  enterprise?"  Certainly 
not,  because  Henry  George  glories  in  the  contention  that  he  will  be  the  liber- 
ator of  industry  and  enterprise.  On  whom,  then,  is:  the  burden  of  taxation  to 
fall?  On  the  farmers  and  workmen,  and  on  all  those  who  are  unable  to 
make  the  gigantic  profits  of  the  capitalists.  It  is  they  that  will  have  to  go 
into  their  pockets  in  order  to  relieve  the  moneyed  class.  (See  Letter  num- 
ber 10.) 

NOTE,  We  have  considered  singletax  as  it  was*  proposed  by  its  origi- 
nator himself,  in  its  plain,  unmasked  "singleness,"  because  this  is  the  only 
way  to  understand  it  and  to  become  aware  of  its  destructive  character.  The 
master's  disciples  commonly  do  not  propose  it  in  this  simple  shape  but  couple 
it  with  other  measures,  some  of  which  are  quite  harmless,  nay  recommend- 
able.  This  is'  done  because  people  "are  not  ready  to  grasp  the  whole  truth 
of  the  single  tax."  (See  article,  "Can  a  Catholic"  page  15)  But  the  aim  is  to 
gradually  remove  the  taxes  from  personal  property,  imports,  etc.,  and  increase 
"the  tax  on  land  values  until  no  other  tax  is  left." 


HENRY  GEORGE  vs.  LEO  XIII. 

Henry  George  was  fully  convinced  of  the  correctness  of  his  teachings. 
In  matters  economic  he  thought  himsetf  to  be  a  kind  of  pope.  So  when  Leo 
XIII.,  in  1892,  issued  his  great  letter  on  the  condition  of  labor,  he  considered  it 
his  duty  to  come  out  with  a  counter-proclamation.  He  speaks  authoritatively, 
like  one  who  sits  upon  a  much  higher  throne  than  that  of  the  fisherman.  He 
wants  "to  lay  before  your  Holiness  the  grounds  of  our  belief,  and  to  set  forth 
some  consideration  that  you  have  unfortunately  overlooked."  He  does  not 
ask  for  clearer  instruction  or  solution  of  doubts:  no,  the  great  American 
knowg  that  he  is  right,  and  his  intention  is  to  convert  the  ignorant  pope.  The 


good  man  really  imagined  that  his  open  letter  made  a  deep  impression  on  Leo 
XIII.,  and  that  it  attained  its  purpose. 

He  begins  by  giving  an  outline  of  his  creed.  "This  world  is  the  creation 
of  God.  The  men  brought  into  it  for  the  brief  period  of  t^eir  earthly  lives  are 
the  equal  creatures  of  His  bounty,  the  equal  subjects  of  His  provident  care. 
.  .  .  With  the  need  for  labor  and  the  power  to  labor  He  has  also  given  to 
man  the  material  for  labor.  This  material  is  land — man  physically  being  a 
land  animal,  who  can  live  only  on  and  from  land,  and  can  use  other  elements, 
such  as  air,  sunshine  and  water,  only  by  the  use  of  land.  Being  the  equai 
creatures  of  the  Creator,  equally  entitled  under  His  providence  to  live  their 
lives  and  satisfy  their  needs,  men  are  equally  entitled  to  the  use  of  l^md.  And 
any  adjustment  that  denies  this  equal  use  of  land  is  morally  wrong." 

One  of  the  most  obvious  errors  in  these  quotations  is  the  assertion  that  all 
men  are  equally  entitled  under  Divine  providence  to  live  their  lives  and  satisfy 
their  needs.  How  could  a  man  who  reads  the  Bible  make  such  a  statement? 
A  very  peculiar  providence  governed  the  fate  of  David,  whom  God  raised  from 
a  shepherd  boy  to  a  king.  Is  everybody  entitled  to  the  same  degree  of  Divine 
care?  The  whole  Jewish  nation  y^s  the  object  of  a  most  wonderful  provi- 
dence for  tv/enty  centuries.  No  other  nation  has  been  favored  to  such  a  de- 
gree, and  neither  the  Jews  nor  any  other  nation  is  entitled  to  it.  It  was  a 
free  gift  of  God,  who  may  be  more  liberal  toward  some  and  less  liberal  to- 
ward others,  without  being  unjust  to  any  one.  We  all  know  men,  good,  ex- 
cellent Christians,  whom  God  has  blessed  with  temporal  possessions,  while 
others,  equally  good,  live  from  hand  to  mouth  during  all  their  lives.  Why  is 
this  so?  Has  Divine  Providence  neglected  its  duty?  If  all  were  equally  en- 
titled to  live  their  Uves  and  satisfy  their  needs,  why  this  inequality? 

It  may  be  said  that  in  certain  points  indeed  all  men  are  equal,  for  in- 
stance, as  far  as  they  have  a  right  to  such  an  amount  of  Divine  care  as  is  re- 
quired for  them  to  save  their  souls ;  without  promising  them  at  least  so  much 
of  assistance  God  neither  would  nor  could  create  any  human  beings.  Every 
man  also  needs  the  right  of  acquiring  private  property  and  not  to  be  hindered 
in  any  unlawful  way:  a  right  which  may  be  said  to  be  equal  in  all  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  globe.  But  to  demand  that  God  must  grant  to  every  man  equally 
good  chances  to  practice  this  right  is  little  short  of  blasphemy. 

It  is  therefore  not  true  that  all  men  are  entitled  to  an  equ^l  share  in  the 
bounties  of  God.  There  is  to  be  a  diversity  in  temporal  possessions,  which 
will  be  productive  of  countles's  acts  of  the  most  beautiful  virtues  and  will 
contribute  very  essentially  to  the  final  state  of  mankind,  that  of  eternal  bliss 
in  heaven. 

This  present  world  of  ours  is  no  end  in  itself.  It  is  the  labor  day  of  toil 
and  trouble,  a  period  of  transition.  God  could  never  have  destined  mankind 
for  an  eternal  sojourn  In  a  world  like  this  valley  of  tears. 

God  created  the  world  and  threw  it  open  to  the  members  of  the  human 
race,  to  be  occupied  by  them,  provided  they  would  respect  things  already  in 
the  possession  of  others;  provided  also,  and  this  we  have  to  consider  a  little 
more  closely,  that  the  things  in  question  are  oceupiable  at  all.  This  is  a  point 
entirely  overlooked  by  Henry  George.  Air,  or  water  in  the  ocean,  or  sunshine, 
cannot  become  property,  because  none  of  these  things  can  be  occupied,  as  it 
is  impossible  to  mark  them  off  as  occupied  or  keep  them  under  control.  They 
are  therefore  no  objects  of  ownership.  Air  and  sunshine  may,  indeed,  be  owned 
in  some  way;  namely,  as  far  as  they  affect  land;  the  wine-growers  along  the 
Rhine  distinguish  well  between  the  sunny  and  the  shady  sides  of  their  hills; 
and  it  is  the  air  and  the  water  of  the  ocean  which  make  property  in  the  sea- 
side resorts  so  desirable.  But  in  themselves,  neither  air  nor  sunshine  can  be 
owned,  because  neither  can  be  marked  off  as  occupied. 

If  water,  however,  is  drawn  in  a  bucket  or  pumped  into  the  city  reser- 
voir, and  if  the  parties  concerned  care  to  make  use  of  their  right,  it  may  be 
rightfully  called  property,  because  it  is  sufficiently  marked  as  occupied. 

Now  listen  to  Henry  George:  "If  a  man,"  he  tells  the  Pope,  "takes  a 
fish  from  the  ocean,  he  acquires  a  right  of  property  in  that  fish.  .  .  .  But 
he  cannot  obtain  a  similar  right  of  property  in  the  ocean,  so  that  he  may  sell 
it  or  give  it  or  forbid  others  to  use  it."  Why  does  the  fish  become  the  prop- 


erty  of  the  man?  "Because  it  is  the  product  of  his  labor."  No,  indeed  not. 
The  man  did  not  make  the  fish;  if  he  did,  he  would  frequently  make  better 
ones  than  those  he  catches.  The  fish  becomes  the  man's  because  th^  man  oc- 
cupied the  fish.  Before  it  was  caught,  the  fish  was  nobody's  property,  so  the 
man  made  use  of  his  natural  right  to  occupy  things  that  so  far  belonged  to 
nobody.  If  the  ocean  does  not  become  his  property,  it  is  simply  because  the 
ocean  is  not  subject  to  occupancy. 

Be  it  rem'arked  in  passing,  that  the  state  as  the  guardian  of  public  welfare 
has  the  right  to  limit  the  occupiabilty  of  unowned  objects.  Hence  we  have 
our  fishery  laws  for  the  protection  of  the  fish  in  our  lakes  and  rivers,  our 
game  laws,  to  secure  the  propagation  of  useful  or  otherwise  desirable  game. 
Such  laws,  provided  they  are  not  oppressive,  are  just  and  must  be  observed. 

"If  he  sets  up  a  windmill  he  acquires  a  right  of  property  in  the  things 
such  use  of  wind  enables  him  to  produce.  But  he  cannot  claim  a  right  of 
property  in  the  wind  itself,  so  that  he  may  sell  it  or  forbid  others  to  use  it." 
We  need  not  formulate  the  answer,  which  is  evident  from  the  foregoing  ex- 
planations. But  these  two  instances,  the  fish  and  the  windmill,  the  ocean  and 
the  wind,  are  only  the  stepping  stones  to  arrive  at  the  main  conclusion.  As 
with  ocean  and  air,  so  it  is  with  the  soil.  "If  he  cultivate  grain,  he  acquires  a 
right  of  property  in  the  grain  his  labor  brings  forth.  But  he  cannot  obtain  a 
similar  right  of  property  in  the  sun  which  ripened  it  or  the  soil  on  which,  it 
grew."  Of  course,  the  sun  which  ripened  the  grain  cannot  become  the  prop- 
erty of  any  one,  but  why  not  the  soil?  If  I  can  make  a  fish  my  excluisve 
property  simply  by  seizing  it,  why  not  the  soil  on  which  I  raise  the  grain  for 
my  bread?  The  fish  remains  my  property  not  only  as  long  as  I  hold  it  in  my 
hand,  or  am  broiling  or  eating  it,  but  as  long  as  it  can  be  recognized  as  mine, 
or  at  least  as  somebody's  property.  Why  cannot  a  piece  of  soil  remain  mine 
after  once  taking  possession  of  it,  provided  only  I  can  mark  it  as  my  property? 
And  why  should  I  be  obliged  to  raise  my  grain  every  year  in  another  place? 

Here  follows  what  Henry  George  thinks  to  be  proof  for  his  assertion: 
"For  these  things — namely  sunshine,  air,  the  ocean  and  the  ^oil — are  the  con- 
tinuing gifts  of  God  to  all  generations  of  men,  which  all  may  use  but  none 
may  claim  as  his  alone."  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  these  lines  can  prove 
anything. 

Either  he  means  to  say:  These  things  are  continuing  in  existence,  but 
things  continuing  in  existence  cannot  be  owned  by  individuals;  therefore 
these  things  cannot  be  owned  by  individuals.  If  he  means  this,  we  ask,  why 
can  things  continuing  in  existence  not  be  owned  by  individuals?  There  are 
houses  in  Europe,  which  have  continued  in  existence  for  centuries  and  have 
been  owned  all  the  time  by  individuals.  There  are  swords,  clocks,  rings  and 
pieces  of  furniture,  a  hundred,  two  hundred  an  five  hundred  years  old,  and 
constantly  m  the  possession  of  individuals.  Therefore  the  fact  that  these 
things  continue  in  existence  is  no  reas'on  v/hy  thoy  should  not  be  owned  by 
individuals.  Moreover,  sunshine  and  air  do  not  even  remain  the  same;  the 
sunshine  consists  of  a  constant  motion  produced  and  ever  renewed  by  the 
sun  in  the  ether;  and  the  air  is  always'  being  changed  by  chemical  influences, 
especally  that  of  the  plants.  Consequently  the  material  continuity  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  question  whether  a  thing  can  or  cannot  be  subject 
to  ownership. 

Or  he  wishes  to  lay  stress  on  the  fact  that  these  things'  are  constantly  kept 
in  existence  by  God  as  His  gifts,  and  means  to  say  that  things  kept  in  ex- 
istence by  God  as  Hi^  gifts  cannot  be  owned  by  private  persons.  But  is  that 
not  the  case  with  the  iron  which  has  been  mined  and  is  preserved  for  sale 
or  has  been  worked  into  a  pen  or  plough.  Does  that  iron  need  less  of  divine 
influence  in  order  not  to  4rop  out  of  existence  than  a  house  lot  or  any 
section  of  the  sea? 

Or  i^  perhaps  this  his  idea:  Air,  sunshine  and  the  soil  are  for  the  use 
of  all  generations;  but  things  that  are  for  the  use  of  all  generations  cannot 
be  owned  by  individuals;  therefore  thesp  things  cannot  be  owned  by  indivi- 
duals. The  statement  implied  by  him,  that  things  destined  for  the  use  of  all 
generations  cannot  be  owned  by  individuals  is  ^mply  absurd.  The  houses, 
swords  and  furniture  mentioned  above  were  destined  for  the  use  of  genera- 


9 


tions  by  their  first  builders  or  makers;  but  this  fact  has  not  interfered  with 
the  quiet  possession  of  any  of  the  successive  individual  owners, 
nor  did  proprietorship  of  the  latter  disturb  in  any  way  the  use  made  of 
them  by  successive  or  former  possessors.  So  it  is  with  the  landed  property; 
Ood  has  always  taken  care  that  one  generation  died  when  the  next  made  its 
appearance.  ^ 

Henry  George  may  finally  think  that  the  last  words  are  a  real  argu- 
ment: "Things  which  all  may  use,  but  none  may  claim  as  his  own."  But 
they  would  prove  that  hardly  anything  can  be  owned.  Certainly  not  the 
fish  of  the  ocean,  because  they  evidently  belong  to  the  things  which  all  may 
use.  Every  fisherman  knows  very  well  that  anybody  may  catch  any  fish. 
All  may  catch  the  fish  but  only  one  will  catch  it;  just  as  in  unoccupied  ter- 
ritory, everyone  MAY  occupy  and  settle  in  any  place,  but  every  place  WILL 
be  occupied  by  one  only. 

Thus  an  accurate  inspection  of  this  passage  only  discloses  that  Henry 
George  had  very  confused  ideas  about  the  origin  of  property.  If  sunshine, 
air  and  ocean  cannot  be  owned,  it  is  for  quite  different  reasons,  which  do  not 
exist  in  the  case  of  land.  Henry  George  did  not  understand  these  reasons. 
Had  he  studied  those  who  before  him  treated  this  question,  Protestants  or 
Catholics,  he  could  not  have  written  down  huch  hazy  and  superficial  state- 
ments. There  is  no  trace  in  them  of  a  real  demonstration.  His  fundamental 
doctrine,  that  land  cannot  be  held  in  exclusive  ownership,  however  con- 
fidently asserted  remains  unproven.  He  proves  it  neither  in  his  main  work, 
"Progress  and  Poverty,"  nor  in  the  "Open  Letter"  to  the  Pope,  and  if  he 
could  have  proved  it  at  all  ho  would  have  done  so  in  these  publications, 
where  he  makes  an  attenlpt  at  it. 

With  this  tumbles  down  that  doctrine  which  has  made  him  especially 
famous,  the  theory  of  singletax,  i.  e.,  one  tax  to  be  levied  on  land  only  and 
to  replace  all  the  taxes  now  in  vogue. 


LETTER  OF  MR.  CARSON 

The  Catholic  Bulletin: 

Cleveland,  May  18,  1915. 
To  the  Editor:  Rev.  Father  Betten  says  Henry  George  maintains  "that  the  soil 
can  never  become  the  property  of  anyone." 

Well  so  does  the  Mosaic  code.  I  invite  the  reverend  gentleman  to  refresh  his 
memory  by  reading  up  in  the  Bible  on  the  land  laws  established  by  Moses. 

Mr.  Carson  evidently  has  heard  s'omebody  talking  about  the  legislation 
by  which  Moses  enjoined  the  Jubilee  Year.  Every  fiftieth  year  was  called  by 
this  name.  After  the  land  of  Palestine  was  conquered,  it  was  distributed 
among  the  Israelites,  and  each  man  and  each  family  received  a  certain  por- 
tion»  which  was  probably  not  small,  if  in  need,  he  might  sell  it,  but  in  the 
next  Jubilee  Year  the  sold  portion  was'  to  revert  to  him;  and  if  he  himself 
had  acquired  land  by  purchase  from  another  man,  he  also  had  to  return  i\ 
to  the  original  owner.  How  long  this  legislation  (which  changed  every  sale 
into  a  lease  for  the  rest  of  the  fifty  years)  has  been  in  force,  it  is  impossible 
to  say. 

But  it  is  easy  to  see  that  this  legislation  far  from  making  private  own- 
ership in  land  impossible,  on  the  contrary  made  the  land  inalienable,  un- 
salable, ^rave  it  over  in  the  strongest  way  possible  to  its  private  owner.  Not 
even  the  state — there  was  little  of  what  we  now  call  "state" — had  the  right 
to  take  it  away.  According  to  Moses,  it  was'  to  remain  the  private  property 
of  the  family  of  its  first  owner  until  dooms'day;  and  it  made  no  difference 
whether  he  used  it  or  not.  This  strange  system,  adapted  to  very  peculiar 
conditions,  of  course  crushed  land  speculation,  but  it  crushed  als'o  enterprise 
and  industry. 

But  was  it  not  the  correct  system  and  ought  it  to  be  reintroduced?  If  it 
were.  Our  Lord  would  have  reintroduced  it;  He  was  not  afraid  of  making  a 
hold  stand  against  anything  that  was  wrong  and  against  anybody  who  acted 
wrongly;  He  restored  matrimony  to  its  original  purity  and    exposed  •  the 


10 


avarice  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees;  if  private  ownership  in  land  were  what 
Henry  George  claims  it  to  be,  a  bold,  bare,  enormous  wrong,  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth would  have  denounced  it  as  such.  Our  Lord  everywhere  supposes  the 
justice  of  private  ownership  of  land;  probably  He  Himself  was,  after  the 
death  of  St.  Joseph,  before  the  law  of  the  land  the  owner  of  some  little  part 
of  the  earth  which  was  the  work  of  His  hands.  (If  He  was,  Henry  'George 
would  have  declared  Him  a  robber.) 

The  Bible  is  a  big  book  and  it  might  be  very  difficult  for  Mr.  Carson,  to 
discover  the  places  where  the  legislation  of  Moses  i^  given.  He  will  find  all 
these  places  quoted  in  an  article  of  the  Catholic  Encyclopedia,  headed  "Jubi- 
lee, Year  of."  It  will  do  him  a  word  of  good  to  read  this  whole  article.  Or 
let  him  go  to  the  French  Dictionaire  de  la  Bible,  (by  Vigouroux),  article 
"Jubilaire  Annee,"  or  the  German  "Kirchenlexicon,"  article  "JobeTjahr,"  or 
to  some  similar  article  in  the  "Jewish  Encyclopedia"  which  he  can  consult 
in  the  public  library.  Any  of  these  sources  will  furnish  reliable  informaton. 
But  thi^  information  will  be  far  different  from  Henry  George's  and  Mr.  Car- 
son's dreams. 

Henr>-  George  does  insist  upon  private  possession  of  land  by  those  who  want 
to  use  it.     lie  would  not  set  aside  existing-  titles. 

Is  that  so?  Let'^  see.  Henry  George  says  in  Progress  and  Poverty  (London, 
Kegan  Paul,  1883  page  242) :  "Consider  for  a  moment  the  utter  absurdity  of 
the  titles  by  which  we  permit  to  be  gravely  passed  from  John  Doe  to  Richard 
Doe  the  right  to  exclusively  possess  the  earth,  giving  absolute  dominion 
agains't  all  others."  This  sentence — to  say  nothing  of  the  gross  exaggeration 
contained  in  it — shows  clearly  what  he  thinks  of  "existing  titles." 

Let  him  reafd  Questions  30  ^.nd  31  in  the  Singletax  Catechism,  the  con- 
tents of  which  we  reproduce  in  the  last  paragraph  of  Fr.  Betten's  article. 
Henry  George  proposes  to  introduce  singletax  gradually,  "because  the  peo- 
ple are  not  ready  to  grasp  the  whole  truth  of  the  singletax,"  but  the  aim  is*  to 
absorb  all  land  values,  that  is,  "to  set  aside  all  existing  titles." 

It  would  make  it  easier  to  gret  a  home,  or  a  site  for  business  purposes.  It 
would  make  every  man  a  landowner  in  the  only  senae  in  which  an  individual 
should  be  a  landowner. 

If  we  admit  the,  morality  of  absolute  private  ownership  of  the  land  of  Ohio 
say  by  100,000  men^  then  these  owners  would  have  the  moral  right  to  dispose  of 
their  titles  to  one  man.  We  would  then  have  all  of  the  people  of  the  state  liv- 
ing" here  at  the  mercy  of  one  individual. 

Mr,  Carson's  contention  that  "it  would  make  it  easier  to  get  a  home,  or 
a  site  for  business  purposes"  is  sufficiently  refuted  in  the  second  part  of  the 
article.    (See  Pages  6  and  7) 

In  his  last  paragraph  he  introduces  the  supposition  that  all  the  land 
owners  of  the  state  of  Ohio  might  get  it  into  their  head  to  dispose  of  their 
titles  in  favor  of  one  man.  But  is  that  not  just  as  much  possible  under  single^ 
tax?  All  the  square  miles  now  held  by  land  companies  will  then  be 
on  the  market,  and  who  will  be  the  most  able  to  buy  but  the  factory  owners, 
railroad  magnates,  etc.?  It  is  not  only  possible  but  probable,  that  some  huge 
combination  will  in  the  course  of  time  absorb  all  the  usable  land,  because 
they  can  best  pay  the  taxes.  The  "people"  will  then  have  to  be  satisfied  with 
the  rocks  or  swamps. — At  any  rate,  if  we  believe  the  pope,  if  we  believe  the 
faith  of  the  ages,  the  abolition  of  private  property  in  land  is  "a  bold  bare 
enormous  wrong,"  which  can  never  lead  to  sound  conditions. 


LETTER  OF  MR.  O.  K.  DORN,  TREASURER  OF  THE 
CLEVELAND  SINGLETAX  CLUB 

PART  I. 

Editor  Catholic  Bulletin: 

Dear  Sir:  "In  his  address  on  the  singletax.  Rev.  F.  S.  Betten  makes  so  many 
mistakes,  according'  to  the  singletaxer's  view,  that  it  is  impossible  to  reply  t«» 


11 


Jill  of  them  in  a  short  communication.  But  let  me  call  attention  to  one,  and  then 
ask  Fatlier  Betten  a  few  questions. 

"He  states:  'Under  the  system  of  singletax  those  will  have  to  pay  the  largest 
amount  of  taxes  who  need  the  largest  extent  of  ground." 

•'Yet  in  another  part  of  his  address  Father  Betten  shows  he  understands 
clearly  that  we  propose  to  tax  according  to  value  rather  than  according  to  area. 

"One  corner  lot  on  the  public  square  in  Cleveland  can  be  sold  at  any  time  at 
tlie  rate  of  $10,000,000  an  acre. 

"Where  is  there  any  farm  land  at  such  a  price?" 

This  is  the  first  part  of  Mr.  Dora's  letter.  He  makes  so  many  mistakes, 
according  to  the  common  sense  man's  view,  that  it  is  impossible  to  reply  to 
all  of  them  in  one  issue.  The  rest  of  his  letter,  if  he  wishes,  will  be  taken 
up  later. 

In  stating  that  "under  the  system  of  singletax  those  will  have  to  pay 
the  largest  amount  of  taxes,  who  need  the  largest  extent  of  ground,"  P.  Bet- 
ten has  in  view  two  or  several  acres  of  the  same  value,  or,  which  is  the  same 
situated  in  the  same  neighborhood.  This  is'  clear  to  every  one  who  reads  the 
article  with  a  minimum  amount  of  attention.  It  is  made  still  clearer  by  the 
fact  that,  as  Mr.  Dorn  rightly  observes,  "F.  Betten  understands  very  well, 
that  we  propose  to  tax  according  to  value  rather  than  according  to  area." 
Nowhere  in  the  article  is  there  a  comparison  made  between  one  area  lying 
in  a  congested  city  district  and  another  one  in  the  open  country.  The  article 
always  expresses  unmistakably  that  one  city  area  is  compared  with  another 
one  next  to  it,  and  one  area  in  the  country  with  another  one  bordering  on  it. 

An  instance  is  given  in  the  article  of  a  little  farm  of  twenty  acres  and 
a  factory  of  one  or  two  stories  immediately  adjoining  the  farm.  Mr.  Dom 
may  read  it  up  and  convince  himself.   Here  is  another  instance. 

Let  us  suppose  a  man  owns  the  whole  front  on  the  Public  Square  In 
Cleveland  between  Superior  and  Euclid  avenues  and  two  hundred  feet  deep. 
He  divides  this  i»to  two  equal  part^  and  sells  both  at  the  same  price.  It 
makes  no  difference,  how  many  millions  he  gets  for  each,,  as  long  as  the 
price  is  equal.  The  new  oivner  of  the  Superior  section,  whom 
we  shall  call  Mr.  Superior  erects  a  substantial  but  moderate 
building  of  some  three  or  four  stories:  Mr.  Euclid  prefers  a 
skyscraper  of  twenty  stories.  While  the  skyscraper  is  building  several  ac- 
cidents happen,  and  the  victims  have  to  be  taken  care  of  by  public  charity 
an  extra  police  force  is  called  to  prevent  the  disturbance^  of  an  impending 
strike.  After  it  is  finished  the  police  is  kept  busy  protecting  its  numerous 
stores  and  offices;  the  courts  nearly  constantly  have  some  law  affair  to  ^t- 
tle  between  the  owner  and  his  hundreds  of  tenants;  the  fire  deparments  must 
ever  be  on  the  alert  to  prevent  damage  by  fire.  Meanwhile  Mr.  Superior  does 
not  cause  one-fourth  the  expense  to  the  city  and  county  and  state.  And  yet 
the  singletaxer  will  write  the  same  amount  on  both  tax  bills.  Will  Mr. 
Dorn  deny  that  this  is  utterly  unjust? 

Sound  reason  demands,  and  we  hope  Mr.  O.  K.  Dorn  will  O.  'K.  this,  that 
everyone  contribute  to  the  support  of  public  order  in  proportion  to  the  ad- 
vantage which  he  derives  from  its  existence.  True,  no  taxing  system  will 
ever  be  devised  which  will  fully  come  up  to  this  ideal;  but  it  i^  the  goal  to- 
wards which  those  who  plan  the  tax  laws  ought  to  direct  their  endeavors, 
singletax  certainly  does  not  have  this  ideal  in  view;  the  scheme  proposed 
by  its  advocates  violates  justice  and  equity  by  its  very  nature. 

"But  let  your  Mr.  Superior  sell  his  property  to  ssuch  as  are  willing  to 
pay  the  tax,"  indeed  that  is  one  of  the  purposes  of  singletaxers ;  they 
want  to  force  people  out  of  their  property.  But  it  is  quite  possible  that  our 
Mr.  Superior  in  spite  of  being  forced  to  pay  for  the  expenses  caused  by  his 
neighbor  is  making  a  moderate  profit  and  consequently  is  not  inclined  to 
sell.  Does  that  make  the  tax  on  his  property  justifiable?  Not  at  all.  He 
Ooes  not  receive  his  money's  worth;  he  is  forced  to  pay  an  immense  sum  to 
the  civil  authority  and  is  given  relative^''  very  little  in  return.  Acts  of  ex- 
tortion can  be  committed  not  only  against  the  poor  but  ^  also  against  the  well- 
to-do;  in  the  case  of  the  factory  and  the  farmer  mentioned  in  the  article  it  is 
an  extortion  committed  against  a  poor  farmer;  but  it  is  extortion  in  ou/ 
ca^e  as  well.  This  glaring  injustice  is  one  of  the  most  prominent  features 
of  the  system  of  singletax. 

12 


QUESTIONS  PUT  TO  MR.  DORN  BY  THE 
CATHOLIC  BULLETIN 

In  the  second  part  ot  his  letter,  Mr,  Dcrn  supposes  that  the  singletax  is 
a  universal  remedy  against  all  the  evils  in  our  present  taxing  methods  and 
all  the  social  and  political  ills  of  our  days.  We  do  not  imagine  there  is  such 
a  panacea;  at  any  rate,  F.  Betten  has  shown  us  that  least  of  all  the  single- 
tax  can  lay  claim  to  have  such  wonderful  qualities.  We  shall  however  give 
an  answer  to  Mr.  Dorn's  questions  on  condition  that  he  answers  the  follow- 
ing counter-que^ions : 

1.  Does  the  Singletax  Club  of  Cleveland,  Ohio,  unreservedly  hold  the 
doctrine  of  Henry  George  that  private  ownership  in  land  "is  a  bold,  bare, 
enormous  wrong?"  Does  it  consequently  consider  the  singletax  only  as  a 
means  to  dispossess  all  the  landowners',  great  and  small,  poor  and  rich,  of 
what  they  now  call  their  rightful  property? 

2.  If  the  Single  Tax  Club  advocates  taxes  other  than  the  tax  on  land 
pure  and  simple,  does  it  do  so  with  a  view  of  by  and  by  eliminating  all  other 
taxes? 

The  answer  we  expect  to  both  these  questions  is  Yes  or  No,  and  nothing 
else.    Only  a  plain  unqualified  answer  will  serve  to  clear  the  atmosphere. 

Note — If  Mr.  Dorn  wishes,  he  may  replace  the  first  question  by  this: 
Does  the  Singletax  Club  of  Cleveland,  as  regards  the  question  of  ownership 
in  land,  side  with  Henry  George  or  with  Pope  Leo  XIII? 

TliE  CREED  OF  THE  CLEVELAND  SINGLETAX  CLUB 

Mr.  Dorn's  Answer: 

Answer  to  Question  No.  1 — "Yes,  we  believe  that  private  ownership  in 
land  is  a  bold,  bare,  enormous  wrong." 

Answer  to  Question  IVo.  2. — "We  emphatically  side  with  Henrj-  George  in 
his  controversy  with  Pope  Leo  XIII." 

Answers  from  a  letter  addressed  to  The  Catholic  Bulletin,  August  3,  1915. 
While  Mr.  Dorn  says  he  has  no  personal  authority  to  commit  the  club  he  is! 
confident  that  he  makes  no  mistake  in  stating  its  position.  Since  that  date 
we  have  no  word  neither  from  the  club  nor  from  any  of  its  members  con- 
tradicting Mr.  Dorn's  position.  This  tlierefore  is  the  Creed  of  the  Singletax 
Club  of  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

During  the  debate  we  shortly  called  attention  to  the  evident  fact,  that 
Catholics  cannot  be  singletaxers.  The  fundamental  doctrine  of  Henry 
Georgianism  is  diametrically  opposed  to  the  Christian  dogma  of  the  right- 
fulness of  private  ownership  in  land,  and  its  chief  apostle  by  an  open  letter 
to  Pope  Leo  XIII  removed  all  doubt.  It  remained,  possible,  however,  that 
the  singletaxers  of  Cleveland  did  not  subscribe  to  all  the  tenets  propounded 
by  Henry  George,  and  especially  would  decline  all  opposition  to  the  head  of 
the  Catholic  Church.  We  must  thank  Mr.  Dorn  for  having  cleared  away  our 
doubts.  His  answers  are  clear  and  unmistakable.  If  we  conclude  that  the 
.Singletax  Club  of  Cleveland  i§  an  anti-Catholic,  nay  an  anti- Christian  insti- 
tution, what  can  Mr.  Dorn  say  to  the  contrary? 

We  do  not  believe  that  every  member  would  be  prepared  personally  to 
swear  to  Mr.  Dorn's  statements.  Many,  perhaps'  the  greater  number  never 
thought  so  far.  They  may  believe  that  the  Singletax  Club  simply  stands 
for  a  general  endeavor  to  improve  the  methods  of  taxation.  They  are  now 
undeceived.  The  Cleveland  Singletax  Club  stands  for  the  unqualified  de- 
nial of  an  article  of  the  faith. 

We  have  still  to  mention  one  part  of  this  letter: 
As  to  your  second  question: 

We  do  not  advocate  the  levying-  of  any  other  taxes  than  the  tax  upon  the  un- 
improved value  of  land.  We  realize  that,  as  a  matter  of  practical  propaganda, 
the  removal  of  taxes  upon  labor  products  must  be  gradual  and  we  support  any 
step  in  that  direction. 

This  is  an  equally  clear  answer.  The  "Singletax  Club  is  true  to  the 
doctines  of.  the  Singletax  cathechism.    See  pp.  three  and  four, 

13 


4 


Mr.  Dorn  concludes  his  letter  by  saying,  "We  invite  you  to  print  Henry 
George's  reply  to  the  Pope  in  your  columns." 

Indeed  not.  Sir.  Our  columns  are  too  precious  for  that.  To  show  what 
kind  of  literature  that  Open  Letter  represents,  we  have  printed  the  short  re- 
view of  its  first  pages.  It  is  surprising  how. much  confusion  there  is  in  the 
author's  first  and  leading  ideas. 

For  us  Catholics,  the  matter  is  finished,  if  Rome  has  spoken.  After  a  de- 
cision of  such  an  official  character  as  the  encyclical  of  Leo  Xlil  the  denial 
of  the  right  of  private  ownership  in  land  is  no  longer  a  debatable  point.  It 
is  abs^olutely  wrong,  as  wrong  as  the  statement  that  twice  two  make  five. 
There  is  no  other  side  to  thisf  question  any  more,  which  it  might  be  worth 
while  for  us  to  study.  The  following  passage  is  necessary  to  understand 
our  answer  to  the  second  part  of  his  letter. 

In  reply  to  the  first  part  of  my  letter  of  July  29  you  ask  whether  in  my 
opinion  singrletax  would  remedy  all  of  the  ills  listed,  in  reply  to  which  I  will 
say  that  singrletax  in  itself  will  not,  but  without  sing:lctax  all  efforts  to  correct 
these  ills  will  be  futile  or  to  say  the  least,  the  efforts  will  be  only  partly  suc- 
cessful. 

MR.  DORN'S  LETTER:  PART  II. 

As  Mri  Dorn  ha^  answered  our  counter-questions,  we  continue  in  our  re- 
ply to  his  letter: 

1.  "As  Father  Betten  condemns  the  single  tax  policj-,  will  he  kindly  state  what 
remedy  he  proposes  for  unemployment,  congestion  of  population,  and  the  tend- 
ency of  wages  to  the  minimum? 

As  to  the  first  paragraph  we  shall  let  our  readers  judge  whether  it  does 
not  really  imply  that  singletax  will  remedy  all  the  evils  enumerated  with  so 
much  emphasis.  A  question  like  this  has  no  sense  unless  Mr.  Dorn  wants  to 
say:  F.  Betten  is  unable  to  mention  such  a  remedy;  but  we  have  it,  we  have 
the  only  one,  and  it  is  singletax.  In  his  second  letter  he  informs  us,  all  he 
meant  to  say  was,  that  singletax  in  itself  is  no  such  remedy,  but  that  without 
it  all  other  efforts  will  be  fruitless.  This  is  indeed  surprisingly  modest  in 
comparison  with  the  triumphant  outcry  of  the  above  paragraph.  Singletax, 
therefore  (according  to  Mr.  Dorn)  is  only  one  of  the  many  things  which  are 
required  to  do  away  with  the  ills  of  our  social  and  economic  life.  Let  us  re- 
member this,  when  Singletaxers  again  use  such  sweeping  exclamations. 

But  after  toning  down  his  question  in  this  way,  after  stating  expressly 
that  the  social  question  cannot  be  solved  by  one  single,  all-powerful  remedy 
with  what  right  does  he  expect  F.  Betten  to  propose  such  a  wonderful  anti- 
dote, which  all  by  itself  will  prove  effective  against  unemployment,  congestion 
of  population  and  the  tendency  of  wages  to  a  minimum? 

2.  "Does  he  really  think  that  it  is  good  public  policy  to  let  one  corporation 
like  Miller  and  Lux  of  California  own  two  whole  counties? 

No,  we  do  not  think  it  is  good  policy  to  let  one  corporation  own  two  whole 
counties.  But  we  are  just  as  strongly  convinced,  that  the  introduction  of 
singletax  would  be  a  thousand  times  worse.^ — Moreover,  neither  Mr.  Dorn  nor 
any  other  singletaxer  has  erer  proyed,  that  under  singletax  such  a  condition  of 
things  would  be  impossible.  The  fact  that  whole  counties  are  owned  by  one 
concern  does  not  increase  the  value  of  the  land ;  consequently  the  tax  on  it, 
even  according  to  singletax  methods,  may  be  trifling;  its  aggregate  certainly 
cannot  be  higher,  but  is  probably  lower  than  if  the  counties  were  owned  by 
ten  thousand  farmers.  Even  under  singletax,  land  can  still  be  bought  and 
sold  and  held.  Why,  therefore  is  it  not  possible  that  one  company  hold  the 
land  of  the  two  counties  and  pay  the  taxes  according  to  the  singletax  method, 
until  it  finds  an  opportunity  to  dispose  of  the  land  with  profit?  We  wishxall 
the  singletaxers  to  consider  this  possibility  well,  because  it  destroys  many  of 
their  dreams. 

3.  "If  not,  where  would  he  draw  the  line  in  restricting  private  property  in 
land? 

Unqnestionably  the  public  authority  has  the  right  of  keeping  every  kind 
of  property  within  such  limits  as   the   public   welfare   really  requires. 

Public  authority  can  by  various  means  prevent  the  accumulation  of  wealth  in 
a  few  hands ;  it  may  for  instance  tax  fortunes  not  only  according  to  the  enor- 


14 


mous  profits  accruing  to  them  from  the  existence  of  Public  Order,  but  also  in 
proportion  to  an  evident  harm  caused  to  the  interests  of  the  community.  It 
may  even  proceed  to  the  simple  confiscation  of  all  that  is  above  a  certain 
amount,  should  this  drastic  means  be  needed  to  keep  colossal  fortunes  from 
becoming  a  curse. 

However,  if  the  singletaxers  do  not  deliberately  close  their  eyes,  they  must 
see  that  the  largest  landowners  are  not  as  s^jch  the  richest  i>€oi)le ;  it  is  not 
by  owning  muCh  land  that  the  wealth  of  the  nation  threatens  to  become  more 
and  more  the  property  of  the  few.  Land  companies  make  much  money  but 
their  heyday  is  naturally  shorty  and  if  it  were  not,  that  would  not  change  the 
following  fact,  which  every  child  knows,  except,  perhaps  the  singletax'^rs : 
It  is  the  owners  of  factories,  railroads,  mines,  steamshi])  lines — all  of  whom 
draw  their  revenues  from  relatively  small  areas — that  swell  the  ^ranks  of  the 
multi-millionaires.  It  is  just  those  very  same  men  whom  Henry  George  iij  his 
fatherly  kindness  proposes  to  untax. 

4.  "How  does  Father  Betten  account  for  the  disparities  in  wealth?" 

For  the  disparity  in  wealth  we  account  chiefly  by  the  fact  that  God  did 
not  create  all  men  equal  but  gave  to  one  better  health,  to  another  greater  ♦ 
strength  of  body,  to  a  third  a  keener  mind,  to  a  fourth  a  stronger  will  and 
that  He  permits  everybody  to  use  for  his  own  benefit  the  advantage  he  thus 
enjoys  over  others. 

5.  "And  will  he  tell  how  he  can  justify,  on  moral  grounds,  private  absorption 
of  land  values?" 

In  exactly  the  same  way  in  which  we  justify  the  private  absorption  of  any 
values.  If  a  railroad  station  is  built  in  a  village  the  value  of  land  goes  up;  but 
so  does  the  value  of  all  other  property,  the  value  of  cattle  and  milk  and  hay. 
The  new  value  of  these  things  is  absorbed  privately  without  the  slightest 
scruple  by  the  individual  farmers.  It  is  for  the  same  reason  that  the  increas- 
ed value  of  the  land  which  is  brought  about  by  the  same  causes — if  we  may 
speak  of  causes  in  this  case — is  absorbed  by  the  individual  owners. 


CAN  A  CATHOLIC  BE  A  SINGLE  TAXER? 

Singletaxeris  occasionally  maintain  that  "there  are  not  a  few  good  Catholics 
who  are  singletaxers  and  who  know,  that  there  is  nothing  in  singletax  philo- 
sophy contrary  to  Catholic  Doctrine."  A  short  discussion  and  answer  on  this 
point  is,  therefore,  evidently  timely  and  useful. 

The  fundamental  doctrine  of  singletax  is:  Private  property  in  land  is  a 
bold,  bare,  enormous  wrong;  nobobdy  has  ever  been  the  rightful  owner  of  a 
single  square  foot  of  land;  only  the  civil  authority,  state  or  municipality,  can 
really  own  land;  all  the  so-called  land  owners  are  robbers. 

This  is  the  way  Henry  George  states  his  theory.  It  is  the  chief  principle 
of  singletax  philosophy.  That  such  a  sweeping  indictment  of  all  land  owners 
runs  counter  to  the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church  certainly  needs  no  proof 
for  anybody  who  has  read  his  bible  history  and  knows  the  Ten  Command- 
ments. To  make  assurance  doubly  sure  Henry  George  after  the  appearance 
of  Leo  XIII's  great  encyclical  'On  the  Conditions  of  the  Working  Classes,'  in 
which  the  right  of  private  ownership  in  land  is  .expressly  vindicated,  thought 
it  his  duty  to  publish  a  manifesto,  an  open  answer  to  the  pope,  to  let  the 
whole  world  know,  that  the  views  expressed  in  the  papal- document  were  in 
absolute  disagreement  with  his  own. 

A  Henry  George  man,  therefore,  oannot  be  called  a  good  Catholic;  on  the 
contrary,  he,  like  Henry  George  puts  himself  in  opposition  to  the  infallible 
head  of  the  Church  and  denies  a  clearly  pronounced  Catholic  doctrine. 

On  such  monstrous  foundation,  then,  Henry  George  bases  his  proposal  to 
levy  all  taxes  exclusively  on  land,  in  order  to  change  in  this  way  all  the  land 
owners  into  tenants  of  the  civil  community.  Consequently  all  those  who  de- 
fend this  tax,  the  "Singletax,"  on  the  s'ame  grounds  as  he,  namely,  by  main- 
taining that  private  ownership  in  land  is  unlawful  and  that  all  the  lan-d  ownr 
ers  are  robbers,  commit  a  serious  fault  against  our  faith. 

But  there  are  some  Catholics  who  never  have  heard  of  the  real  doctrine 
of  Henry  George.   They  think  they  haVe  to  do  only  with  another  taxing  sys- 

1.*; 


tea\  which  at  lirst  sight  seems  to  appeal  to  them.  The  reasons  by  which  its 
advocates  try  to  support  it  (the  true  reason  being  very  often  omitted)  appar- 
ently touch  on  no  question  of  religion.  The  leading  spirits  of  the  Singletax 
mo^ment  intentionally  create  confusion  in  the  minds  of  those  T^hora  they 
fpropose  to  ^conyert.''  (See  p.  7)  They  make  them  believe  that  singletax 
stands  for  a  general  endeavor  to  improve  the  methods  of  ta^xation. 

Whenever  some  new  and  practical  tax  is  introduced  in  any  country,  they 
proclaim  it  as  a  singletax  measure  and  triumphantly  announce  to  the'  world 
V  new  progres's  of  their  ideas.  The  inheritance  tax,  a  very  natural  mode  of 
forcing  people  to  contribute  to  the  support  of  public  order,  is  put  under  the 
head  of  singletax.  State  revenue  levied  on  franchises  and  monopolies  i^  an- 
other hobby  of  theirs.  Completely  their  own,  they  ima^ne,  is  the  so-called 
unearned  increment  tax,  which  is  laid,  In  various  ways,  on  the  amount  by 
which  a  piece  of  property  increases  in  value  on  account  of  the  increase  of 
the  local  .population  or  the  building  of  a  factory  or  railroad  Nation;  this 
tax,  which  recommends  itself  to  many  well-informed  persons,  has  nothing 
at  all  to  do  with  Henry  George's  absurd  and  un-Christian  theory. 

This  confusion,  brought  on  by  professional  singletaxers  because  they 
know  well  that  the  public  is  not  ripe  for  ^ngletax  pure  and  simple,  accounts 
for  the  vagueness  with  which  many  well-meaning  people  view  a  measure 
which  if  properly  understood  would  only  call  forth  their  reprobation.  Such 
-ll-informed  persons.  Catholic  or  not.  are  to  be  sincerely  pitied  on  account 
of  their  lack  of  instruction,  and  because  they  involuntarily  contribute  to  the 
spread  of  an  erroneous  and  very  pernicious  doctrine. 

LETTER  OF  W.  B.  LUTTON,  ATTORNEY 

Editor  Catholic  Bulletin: 

Sir — 1 — The  courts  have  repeatedly  upheld  the  legal  and  moral  right  of  the 
^orvennment  to  destroy  or  restrict  the  us©  of  private  property  in  whole  or  in 
part  by  means  of  taxation. 

We  gladly  grant  this.  The  public  authority  has  such  a  right  even  in  a 
higher  degree  than  Mr.  Lutton  seems  to  think  of.  The  public  authority  can 
exDropriate  individuals,  i.  e.,  condemn  their  property,  on  condition  only, 
that  a  reasonable  indemnification  be  paid. 

2 — Thus  a  tax  is  imposed  to  limit  the  number  of  dogs.  If  made  heavy 
enough  and  enforced,  such  a  tax  would,  unquestionably,  lead  to  a  general 
.slaughter  of  the  canine  family. 

This  gives  us  a  chance  to  discuss  shortly  the  fallacy  of  the  famous  dog"  , 
tax  amendment.  It  seems  to  be  a  favorite  weapon  of  the  singletaxers. 
Three  years  ago  it  figured  conspicuously  in  a  campaign  pamphlet  of  theirs 
in  the  state  of  Missouri.  Now  a  tax  on  dogs  does  not  decrease  the  number 
of  dogs.  If  it  did,  a  tax  on  rats  would  decrease  the  number  of  rat^  ^d  a  tax 
on  rabbits  would  diminish  the  number  of  these  rodents.  If  a  dog  tax  had  any 
influence  on  the  increase  or  decrease  of  these  animals,  the  Turks  would  have 
resorted  to  it  long  ago,  to  do  away  with  the  pest  of  their  hordes  of  dogs  in 
the  streets  of  Constantinople. 

Did  any  dog  ever  bother  his  head  about  a  tax  which  the  city  authority 
gravely  put  on  him?  Indeed  not.  But  the  owners  do.  If  a  dog  tax  be  intro- 
duced, there  will  certainly  be  fewer  owners  after  it  has  been  working  for 
some  time  than  there  were  before.  The  dog  tax  will  surely  decrease  the 
number  of  people  who  care  to  own  dogs.  It  does  not  necessarily,  however, 
»  as  Mr.  Lutton  supposes,  lead  to  a  slaughter  of  thcs>e  animals.  The  dog 
owners  may  prefer  simply  to  chase  them  into  the  street.  Of  course  the  city 
may  establish  the  honorable  position  of  a  dog  catcher,  but  that  is  an  extra 
measure,  not  in  itself  contained  in  the  impost  on  dogs.  For  the  exchequer  of 
city  or  state  it  makes  no  difference  whether  there  are  ten  thousand  or  two 
hundred  thov.s^and  dogs  on  its  domain.  All  the  collectors  of  this  tax  care  for 
is  the  proprietors  of  dogs.  - 

The  singletaxers  imagine,  that  it  is  s^fe  to  tax  the  land  because  it  can- 
not be  diminished.  But  if  the  dog  tax  diminishes  the  proprietors  of  dogs, 
what  will  be  the  effect  of  the  land  tax?   It  will  diminish  the  number  of  pro- 


16 


prietors  of  land;  there  will  be  fewer  people  under  singletax  than  there  are 
now  who  care  to  own  land  and  pay  the  taxes  for  it. 

They  forget  still  another  point  The  dog  tax  is  never  expected  to  bring 
the  entire  revenue  which  the  public  authority  needs;  but  the  singletax 
on  land  owners  ^will.  Suppose  all  tne  expenses  of  the  city  administration 
were  levied  on  t^iose  who  own  dogs,  according  to  the  value  of  the  latter,  who 
woul^  care  to  keep  one?  Under  singletax  the  land  owners  will  have  to  de- 
fray, all  by  themselves,  this  large  sum;  who  then  will  care  to  be  a  land- 
owner? 

This  is  what  the  dog  tax  argument  amounts  to. 

3 —  We  have  so  many  taxes,  it  is  difficult  to  keep  track  of  them.  In  the  con- 
stitution and  laws  of  Ohio,  there  must  be#at  least  fifteen  taxes  provided  for, 
differing  in  theory,  and  some  of  them  extremely  injurious.  The  machinery  of 
assessment  and  collection  is  so  complicated;  the  evasions,  delinquencies  and  law 
suits  are  so  numerous,  that  the  cost  of  the  system  is  a  burden  so  great  as  to 
condemn  our  method  of  raising  public  revenue. 

Now,  supposing  our  law  makers  become  disgusted  with  this  absurdly  illo- 
gical and  expensive  tax  system,  and  should  decide  to  have  an  inexpensive  and 
simple  system.    What  better  could  be  done  than  to  adopt  the  single  tax? 

Certainly  the  machinery  of  assessment  and  collection  of  taxes  is  com- 
plicated. If  our  nation  were  still  in  a  more  or  less  barbarous  condition  we 
should  despair  of  it.  But  anyhow,  a  simplification  would  be  desirable.  We 
propose  a  very  simple  tax,  Mr.  Lutton.  Let  us  lay  all  the  expens'es  of  our 
sixth  city  upon  the  owners  of  brick  houses.  Nothing  simpler  for  the  asses- 
sors, nothing  simpler  for  the  collectors.  You  hestitate,  Mr.  Lutton?  Why? 
Certainly  because  you  see  that  s'uch  a  method  would  be  too  evidently  unjust. 
That  is  exactly  what  we  want  to  bring  out.  The  very  first  question  concerning 
any  mode  of  raising  money  for  public  expences  is  not  whether  it  is  easy  and 
simple,  but  whether  it  is  just.  In  the  long  series  of  articles  which  have  been 
running  in  the  "Catholic  Bulletin"  we  trust  we  hav<e  ^own  clearly  that 
singletax  is  unjust.  Consequently  all  other  qualities  which  might  be  attribut- 
ed to  it  cannot  come  into  consideration. 

4 —  It  would  encourage  the  possession  of  land  for  use,  but  would  destroy  all 
incentive  for  holding  land  for  speculative  purposes.  The  "lord  of  the  land" 
would  have  to  go  to  work  and  earn  his  own  living.  But  all  wanting  land  for 
use  could  get  it. 

The  same  injustice  does  away  with  all  the  other  advantages  which  are 
claimed  for  singletax.  Besides,  who  would  force  the  "Lord  of  the  Land" 
to  go  to  work?  If  he  can  pay  the  tax,  why  could  he  not  hold  a  lot  in  the 
heart  of  a  growing  city  until  its  price  has  become  tenfold?  Land  st)eculation 
would  not  be  an  absolute  impossibility  under  singletax.  To  suppress  all 
land  speculation  would  be  disastrous,  especially  in  a  developing  country  like 
ours;  and  against  the  abus'es  of  this  kind  of  enterprise  the  American  spirit 
can  find  better  means  than  singletax,  which  is  a  bold,  bare,  enormous  wrong. 


LETTER  OF  HOWARD  M.  HOLMES,  SECRETARY, 
CLEVELAND  SINGLETAX  CLUB 

August  20,  1915. 

Editor  The  Catholic  Bulletin: 

Sir — I  write  for  information,  I  have  a  number  of  Catholic  friends  of  whom 
I  might  frankly  ask  the  same  questions,  but  they  are  not  at  hand  now  when  the 
question  is  in  my  mind;  and,  perhaps  through  natural  delicacy,  we  have  never 
discussed  religious  faiths., 

1.  Question — Is  it  really  a  part  of  Catholic  faith  that  members  of  the  Catlio- 
lic  Church  must  accept  the  dictum  of  the  Pope  on  political  and  economic  tiues- 
tions?  I  have  always  supposed  that  the  Pope's  authority  was  restricted  to  mat- 
ters of  church  discipline  and  of  faith  as  regards  the  spirit  and  a  future  life.  I 
am  not  a  scholar  and  may  be  mistaken.  I  ask  this  in  no  unfriendly  spirit.  I 
belong  to  no  church  and  have  always  discouraged  rabid  anti-Catholics. 

By  this  time  it  ought  to  be  clear  to  Mr.  Holmes,  that  the  question  of  sinerle- 
tax  is  in  the  very  first  place  a  moral  and  religions  matter.  It  is  based  on  a 
religious  doctrine,  namely  whether  the  present  owners  of  landed  property 
are  thieves  or  not,  wether  God  instituted  private  property  in  land  or  con- 
demned it.  We  may  pave  our  streets  with  brick  or  asphalt,  that  will  not 
concern  the  pope  nor  any  other  ecclesiastical  authority;  but  if  the  city  with- 


17 


out  any  reason  and  compensation  seizes  a  pile  of  bricks  for  this  purpose,  the 
matter  becomes  a  moral  question,  and  those  ordering  such  a  seizure,  if 
Catholics,  cannot  be  absolved  unless  they  promise  to  hiake  due  resti- 
tution. The  singletaxers  intend  to  seize  without  reason  and  compensation 
not  a  pile  of  bricks  but  all  landed  property.  (They  do  not  even  know  yet 
whether  they  are  going  to  give  it  to  the  city  or  the  country  or  the  state  or 
the  nation).  That  this  is  in  the  very  first  place  a  moral  and  religious  ques- 
tion of  supreme  importance,  a  question  both  of  doctrine  and  of  justice  every- 
body who  has  common  sense  must  grant,  whether  he  be  a  scholar  or  not.  It 
is  an  economic  question,  but  bound  up  with  a  grave  moral  and  religious  is- 
sue. The  whole  Social  Question,  as  Pius  X  says  in  his  encyclical  on  the  Trade 
Unions  in  Germany,  is  in  the  first  place  of  a  moral  and  religious  nature  "and 
must  therefore  be  guided  chiefly  by  the  moral  law  and  the  verdict  of  religion.*' 
(Encycl.  of  Sept.  24,  1912). 

Mr.  Holmes  thinks  the  Pope's  authority  is  restricted  to  things  that  re- 
gard "the  spirit  and  a  future  life.'*  Certainly,  Mr.  Holmes.  But  there  is 
hardly  any  earthly  thing  or  action  or  relation  which  is'  not  liable,  at  least 
under  certain  circumstances,  to  "regard  the  spirit  and  a  future  life."  The 
Ten  Commandments  certainly  are  an  official  utterance  of  Almighty  God  about 
matters  which  "regard  the  spirit  and  a  future  life:"  yet  the  greater  part  of 
tbem  concern  themselves  very  minutely  with  earthly,  worldly,  temporal,  ma- 
terial things,  and  actions  and  relations.  For  us  Catholics,  the  Pope  is  the 
Grod-appointed  guardian  of  the  Ten  Commandments.  Verstanden? 

2.  You  seem  to  implj''  that  if  the  Pope  declares  our  land  system  to  be  just 
good  Catholics  must  accept  it,  however  much  tlieir  reason  may  revolt. 

Indeed,  good  Catholics  must  accept  this;  nor  will  sound  reason  ever 
revolt  against  any  papal  decision.  The  power  which  finally  governs  papal 
decisions  is  not  the  pope's  good  pleasure  nor  his  knowledge  nor  the  advice 
or  the  influence  of  the  cardinals,  but  the  One  .  who  said  to  the  first  pope, 
••thou  art  a  rock,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church."  God  has  more 
than  a  thousand  means  to  prevent  the  pope  from  error.  It  is  at  the  Same 
time  He  who  fashioned  human  reason,  and  being  sound  of  reason  the 
contrary  of  what  He  teaches  through  His  mouthpiece  of  the  throne  of  St. 
Peter.  Catholics  have  that  much  confidence  in  the  providence  of  an  all- 
knowing,  all-wise  and  all-mighty  God. 

3.  If  Pope  Leo  XIII's  dictum  in  that  respect  is  to  be  accepted  by  Catholice, 
what  will  they  do  with  that  of  Pope  Gregory  the  Great,  who  denounced  private 
property  in  land — to  say  nothing  of  Cardinal  Manning,  Bishop  Nulty,  Dr.  Mc- 
Glynn,  Dr.  Burtsell,  the  Rev.  Thos.  Cox  of  Chicago,  and  many  lesser  lights. 

St.  Gregory  denounced  Property  in  Land  ?  Mr.  Holmes,  you  really  do 
not  know  what  you  are  talking  about.  You  can  only  refer  to  one  passage 
in  St.  Gregory's*  works,  which  is  quoted  by  Socialists  to  prove  that  St. 
Gregory  was  a  Socialist.  Have  perhaps  the  singletaxers  become  Socialists  of 
iate7  Of  course  the  passage  proofs  nothing.  It  is  one  of  those  strong  ut- 
terances' often  found  in  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  by  which  charity  was  in- 
culcated to  the  rich.  St.  Gregory  expressly  tells  them  to  give  liberally  "of 
to  landed  property  a  singletax  meas-ure.  (See  Cath.  Bulletin,  Article  "Can 
their  own";  hence  he  does  not  only  not  deny  private  property  but  supposes 
it  as  self-evident.  (See  John  A.  Ryan,  Alleged  Socialism  of  the  Church 
Fathers,  pp.  15,  16,  20). 

is  perhaps  your  quotation  from  Cardinal  Manning  of  a  similar  char- 
acter? And  after  all,  it  makes'  no  difference  for  us,  what  Cardinal  Manning 
or  Bishop  Nulty  (eternally  quoted)  or  Dr.  Burtsell  or  the  "many  lesser  lights'^ 
have  to  say.  They  all  together  cannot  oi^tshine  the  light  of  the  one  authority 
which  alone  has  the  promise  of  infallibility. 

4.  At  a  great  gathering  of  Knights  of  Columbus  in  Pennsylvania.  Mr.  Man- 
ahan,  congressman-at-large  from  Minnesota  advocated  the  single  tax  as  a  land 
reform  measure. 

We  need  not  say  that  Mr.  Manahan  is  no  authority  for  us  in  such  mat- 
ters. But  we  doubt  very  much  that  he  really  recommended  ^ngletax.  He 
probably  spoke  of  some  tax  measure  concerning  real  estate.    It  is  well 


91 


known  that  the  adherents  of  Henry  George  call  every  taxing  method  referring: 
a  Catholic  be  a  Singletaxer?"  and  Mr.  Dorn's  letter  of  Aug.  3rd.)  ' 

5.  I  have  been  told,  but  can't  vouch  for  it,  that  Dr.  Ryan,  protessox-  oi  jjoii- 
tical  economy  in  the  Jesuit  college  at  St.  Paul,  i.s  a  single  taxer.  Anyv/ay,  ha 
hinted  at  it  in  his  "Everybody's"  debate  on  socialism  with  Hilquit. 

Walsli,  of  the  Industrial  Commission,  is  a  single  taxer,  and  we  have  several 
Catholics  in  our  Club. 

Hoping  for  a  better  understanding,  and  that  we  can  get  together  ultimately 
on  some  practical  program  for  social  reform,  I  remain.  Yours  very  truly, 

HOWARD  M.  HOLMES, 
Sectretary,  Cleveland  Single  Tax  Club. 

There  is  no  Jesuit  College  at  St.  Paul,  Minn. — Rev.  Dr.  Ryan,  far  from 
advocating  singletax,  ha^  even  issued  a  pamphlet  to  refute  that  whole  theory, 
under  the  title,  "Henry  George  and  Private  Property"  (Columbus  Press,  N.  Y., 
15c.) — besides  writing  the  above  mentioned  booklet  "Alleged  Socialism  of 
the  Church  Fathers."    (B.  Herder,  St.  Louis,  50c.)  F.  S.  B. 


ANOTHER  LEXrER  OF  MR.  LUTTON,  ATTORNEY 

Editor  Catholic  Bulletin,  Dear  Sir: 

I  received  a  copy  of  your  Bulletin  issued  August  6th  and  have  read  with 
considerable  pleasure  your  discussion  of  the  Single  Tax  with  Mr.  Dorn. 

We  would  like  to  make  a  few  observations  on  your  article  and  assure  you 
that  we  do  so  only  in  a  spirit  of  helpfulness  and  with  the  utmost  good  will. 

1.  At  the  outset,  and  in  order  that  we  may  start  right,  we  would  ask  that 
you  give'  us  credit  as  we  give  you  credit  for  seeking  the  truth.  It  says  some- 
where that  the  truth  will  make  us  free.  And  Freedom — economic,  political,  per- 
sonal— is  a  panacea  for  all  ills,  although,  as  you  say,  the  Single  Tax  may  not  be. 

How  much  credit  Mr.  Lutton  deserves  for  seeking  the  truth  we  need  not 
decide.  So  much  is  sure  that  he  could  have  been  more  honest  in  one  of 
his  statements.  He  maintains  that  it  is  we  who  said  that  singletax  may  not 
be  the  panacea  for  all  ills.  It  was  Mr.  O.  K,  Dorn,  Treasurer  of  the  Single- 
tax  Club,  just  as  well.  Here  are  his  words:  "In  the  last  part  of  your  letter 
of  July  29,  you  ask  whether  in  my  opinion  singletax  wpuld  remedy  all  of  the 
Ills  listed;  in  reply  to  which  I  will  say  that  singletax  in  itself  will  not." 
(From  letter  of  August  8.  Mr.  Lutton's  phrase,  "as  you  ^y"  is  not  ex- 
pressive of  fairness.  It  is  only  calculated  to  make  the  reader  believe  that 
singletaxers  do  not  grant  this. 

2.  You  have  stated  to  Mr.  Dorn  that  you  would  answer  some  questions  of 
his  on  condition  that  he  answer  some  counter-questions  of  yours.  It  seems  to 
us  that  if  the  singletax  is  wrong  and  you  know  wherein  the  fallacy  resides 
you  ought  to  point  it  out  without  reference  to  whether  someone  answers  your 
questions,  so  that  we  may  no  longer  travel  the  wrong  road. 

We  have  been  pointing  out  the  fallacies  of  singletax  for  more  than  four 
months.  It  is  not  our  fault  if  Mr.  Lutton  is  still  travelling  the  wrong 
road. 

3.  Referring  to  your  illustrations  of  two  lots  of  equal  value  on  tlie  Public 
Square  in  Cleveland,  on  one  of  which  is  constructed  a  building  of  twenty  stories, 
and  on  the  other,  one  of  four,  we  think  you  have  drawn  some  misleading  con- 
clusions. In  the  first  place,  under  any  just  system  the  expense  of  accidents  oc- 
curring in  the  construction  of  a  building  is  a  proper  item  in  the  cost  of  construc- 
tion and  should  be  paid  for  in  full  by  the  owner.  Suppose,  under  your  arrange- 
ment, ten  serious  accidents  occurred  on  the  four  story  building  and  none  on  the 
twenty  story  structure.  The  owner  of  the  larger  building  would  be  compelled 
to  pay  In  taxes  part  of  the  expense  of  the  construction  of  the  smaller  one. 

Mr.  Lutton  refers  to  an  instance  which  we  gave  in  our  answer  to  Mr. 
Dorn,  which  is  started  on  page  twelve.  It  may-be  well  to  re-read  it,  that  our 
answer  be  more  fully  undersood. 

Mr.  Lutton  overlooked  a  very  obvious  thing.  In  the  apportioning  of 
taxes,  in  fixing  the  rates  of  life  insurances  and  similar  affairs,  nobody  goe^ 
by  what  will  actually  happen,  because  that  c^.n  never  be  known  beforehand, 
hut  by  what  is  most  likely  to  happen.  Will  he  really  deny  that  most  likely  in 
the  erection  of  a  twenty  story  building  more  accidents  will  occur  than  in  the 
construction  of  a  four-story  one?  Under  siHgletax  public  authority  levies  the 
same  amount  on  both  buildings,  because  they  cover  an  area  of  equal  value. 
Is  that  not  a  most  unjust  tax,  if  we  take  as  standard  what  is  most  likely  to 


19 


happen?    This  is  the  only  conclusion  common  sense  will  draw,  and  we  do 
not  see  at  what  other  conclusion  Mr.  Lutton  can  arrive. 

4.  You  assume  that  taxes  are  paid  for  fire  and  police  protection,  etc.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  a  man  may  pay  in  a  large  amount  and  his  property  may  •  be 
stolen  on  account  of  drowsiness  of  a  patrolman,  or  destroyed  by  reason  of  the 
negligence  of  the  fire  department,  but  he  has  no  redress..  It  is  inaccurate  and 
incorrect,  therefore,  to  say  that  the  taxpayer  pays  for  these  things  when  he  is 
forced  to  pay  whether  lie  gets  them  or  not.  A  tax  is  simply  the  money  paid  by 
a  person  as  a  member  of  society  for  the  support  of  the  Government.  The 
amount  that  each  should  pay,  apparently,  is  the  thing  that  bothers  us. 

Certainly,  on  account  of  the  drowsiness  of  a  patrolman  or  the  negli- 
gence of  the  fire  department  a  poor  (or  rich)  taxpayer  may  suffer  great  in- 
jury. But  let  us  suppose  that  singletax  is  in  vogue,  and  that  factories, 
mine  owners,  navigation  companies  and  other  pets  of  Henry  George  pay 
taxes  only  for  the  value  of  the  area  they  use  (which  means'  that  they  are 
practically  untaxed) ;  will  any  reader  of  the  Bulletin  think  that  as  soon,  as 
such  heavenly  conditions  are  introduced,  there  will  be  no  longer  any' drowsy 
policemen,  nor  any  negligence  in  the  fire  departments  of  the  cities?  Indeed 
not  Consequently  it  may  happen  under  singletax  just  as  well  that  "the  tax- 
payer pays  for  thos'e  things  (police  and  fire  protection)  when  he  ^s  forced  to 
pay  whether  he  gets  them  or  not." 

Moreover,  if  a  system  which  denies  Henry  George's  principles  does  not 
work  out  satisfactorily,  the  fault  often  lies  with  those  who  apply  the  system 
and  not  with  the  system  itself.  But  Henry  George's  system  is  essentially 
wrong,  and  no  matter  by  whom  applied  can  never  w^ork  out  satisfactorily, 
it  is  as  with  a  gun;  if  a  gun  is  good,  you  can  usq  it,  and  if  it  does  not 
hit  the  mark,  it's  the  shooter's  fault;  if  it  is  bad,  nobody  can  do  anything 
VN'ith  it,  not  even  the  best  marksman.   The  singletax  system  is  a  bad  gun. 

But  what  Mr.  Lutton  really  means  to  say  is  this:  "It  is  incorrect  .to 
say  that  a  man  pays  taxes  for  police  and  fire  protection,  because  he  may 
not  get  either.  It  is  not  the  purpose  of  taxes  to  procure  stich  protection  at 
all;  the  purpose  of  taxes  is  simply  the  support  of  the  government"  Great 
George,  what  a  wisdom!  Listen  ye  citizens  of  the  Forest  City,  under  single- 
tax  you  will  not  pay  a  cent  for  police  or  fire  protection,  at  least  it  will  be 
incorrect  to  say  that  you  do.  You  will  pay  for  the  support  of  the  g^overn- 
ment  only.  Whether  that  government  will  grant  you  any  protection  at  all, 
as  long  as  you  do  not  pay  for  the  expenses  thereby  incurred,  it  is  hard  to 
tell.  This  is  the  kind  of  government  which  the  great  thinkers  of  the  Single- 
tax  Club  promise  to  you.  We  sincerely  recommend  Mr.  Lutton  as  a  fit  mem- 
ber of  the  first  singletax  administration  of  Cleveland. 

5.  You  urge  it  as  sound  reason  that  everyone  should  contribute  to  support 
public  order  in  proportion  to  the  advantage  which  he  derives  from  its  existence. 
The  advantage  that  each  derives  is  a  thing  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  detect. 
Life  is  more  valuable  than  property:  and  under  such  a  rule  a  man  with  a  family 
would  be  required,  we  think,  to  pay  more  in  taxes  than  a  bachelor  with  his 
heaned-up  millions.  A  poor  man  with  threadbare  clothes  who  enjoyed  life, 
would  derive  more  advantage  from  good  order,  perhaps,  and  so  would  be  com- 
pelled to  pay  more  into  the  public  treasury  than  a  dispeptic  millionaire. 

Mr,  Lutton  mixes  up  two  things.  The  advantage  one  derives  from  the  ex- 
i.stence  of  public  order  is  one  thing.  The  joy  and  happiness  one  -gets  out  o£ 
life  is  another,  and  a  vastly  different  thing.  Our  young  first-communicants 
for  instance,  or  the  Sisters  of  our  convents,  enjoy  a  happiness  which  is  to- 
tally unknown  to  the  rich  infidel  millionaire.  But  public  order  has  mighty 
little  to  do  with  it.  while  it  has  everything  to  do  with  the  factories  or  mines 
of  the  money-king. 

And  as  for  the  man  with  the  family,  "we  should  say,  that  if  nothing  " 
comes  into  consideration  but  the  expenses  for  increased  protection,  he  ought 
to  prepay  more  than  the  bachelor.  But  by  doing  his  duty  to  his'  family  he 
pays  to  the  state  such  a  heavy  tax,  that  any  higher  charge  on  the  score  of 
his  family  would  be  absurd.  Mr.  Lutton,  we  heartily  favor  even  an  extra  tax 
on  the  bachelor.   But  please  do  not  say  that  this  stamps  us  singletaxers. 

6.  Since  you  are  defending  the  present  system  of  taxation,  we  would  like 
to  have  your  opinion  on  the  following:  Tn  Cleveland  in  the  last  ten  years  land 
values  have  increased  approximately  200  million  dollars.    In  your  opinion,  to 


20 


whom  does  it  belong?  Does  it  belong  to  the  people  of  the  City  of  Cleveland,  or 
to  a  few  landlords,  We  contend  that  it  is  a  community  product  and,  therefore, 
belongs  to  ihe  Community  and  that  it  should  be  used  in  paying  the  obligations 
of  the  Community  which  amount  to  an  annual  10  million.  Are  we  wrong  in 
this?    Is  this  unjust?    We  would  be  glad  if  you  would  enlighten  us. 

Provided  the  present  owners  have  acquired  their  landed  property  in  a  just 
way,  the  entire  value  as  it  is  today,  no  matter  by  how  many  millions  its 
aggregate  has  increased  since  it  came  into  their  rightful  possession,  belongs 
to  them  and  to  them  alone,  that  is,  to  the  owners  of  modest  hous'e-lots  as 
well  as  those  who  own  scores  of  acres.  To  say  the  contrary  is  to  advocate 
wholesale  robbery.  It  neither  belongs  to  the  city  nor  to  the  county  nor  to 
the  state  nor  to  the  nation  nor  to  the  human  race  in  general.  Neither  city 
nor  county  nor  nation  nor  the  human  race  in  general  has  any  right  with  re- 
gard to  this  kind  of  property  which  it  ha^  not  with  regard  to  any  other  kind 
of  property.  Public  authority  may  tax  it,  may  even  tax  the  so-called  un- 
earned increment  as  such;  but  no  public  authority  is  or  ever  was  the  rightful 
owner  of  such  possessions. 

It  is  well  to  remember  that  there  has  been  increase  in  value  occasioned  by 
the  growth  in  population  or  similar  circumstances  as  long  as  the  world  ex- 
ists. In  all  centuries  cities  have  grown  from  small  beginnings,  and  the  own- 
ers of  landed  or  other  property  never  doubted  that  the  increment  accruing 
therefrom  waS  really  theirs.  The  Church  never  thought  it  her  duty  to  teach 
them  anything  different.  Wherever  she  happened  to  own  anything,  she  has 
at  all  times  just  as  other  owners  accepted  the  benefits  coming  to  her  in  this  « 
way.  Our  own  parish  churches  and  parochial  schools  and  other  institutions 
do  not  act  differently.  In  view  of  Wilis'  fact  it  is  very  strange  indeed  that 
there  are  Catholics — at  least  it  is  said  there  are — thoughtless  enough  to  re- 
peat the  declamation  of  the  singletaxers. 


For  a  more  extensive  and  philosophic  refutation  of  Henry  George's  con- 
tention we  refer  the  reader  to  John  A.  Ryan,  "Henry  George  and  Private 
Property  in  Land,"  pp.  22  etc.,  or  Arthur  Preuss,  "The  Fundamental  Fallacy 
of  Socialism,*'  pp.  155,  etc. 


ANOTHER  LETTER  OF  MR.  HOWARD  M.  HOLMES,  SECRE- 
TARY OF  CLEVELAND  SINGLETAX  CLUB 

We  should  never  have  made  up  our  mind  to  publisTi  such  a  letter,  were 
it  not  for  the  incredible  amount  of  brass  it  contains.  That  is  the  only  word 
we  find  for  the  properties  manifested  in  it. 

Oct.  19,  1915. 

To  the  Editor  of  The  Catholic  Bulletin: 

1.  In  view  of  your  statement  regarding  Pope  Gregory  the  Great  and  his 
supposed  views  on  the  land  question,  I  send  you  under  separate  cover  a  reprint 
of  an  article  in  the  Atlantic  Monthly  by  F  .W.  Garrison,  grandson  of  William 
Lloyd  Garrison,  and  call  your  attention  to  the  paragraph  marked. 

The  article  Mr.  Holmes  sent  has  for  its  motto  just  the  passage  we  refer 
to  in  our  answer  of  Oct.  16.  The  pap'sage  is  about  five  lines  long.  It  is  all 
Mr.  Holmes  ever  heard  or  saw  of  the  works  of  St.  Gregory  the  Great.  He 
never  consulted  them  himself.  The  few  dots  put  into  the  text  by  F.  E. 
Garrison,  grandson  of  William  Lloyd  Garrison,  (we  nearly  fainted  when  we 
saw  these  formidable  names)  should  have  shown  him  that  the  context  might 
possibly  change  the  meaning.  It  really  does.  A  few  lines  before,  the  author 
states  that  he  wishes  to  admonish  those  who  do  not  give  of  their  own. 
How  this  can  leave  any  doubt  in  the  mind  of  Mr.  Holmes  as  to  the  great  pope's 
real  meaning,  we  fail  to  see.  It  is  "one  of  those  strong  utterances  often 
found  in  the  works  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  by  which  they  inculcate  the 
piactice  of  Charity." 

AVe  fail  to  see,  also,  how  it  could  escape  Mr.  Holmes,  that  St.  Gregory 
speaks  of  property  in  general,  and  not  at  all  exclusively  of  the  property  in 
land.,  nay  movable  property  is  evidently  much  more  in  the  pope's  mind  be- 
cause it  is  movable  property,  food,  clothing,  money,  that  is  chiefly  given  as 


21 


alms.  If  it  were  true,  therefore,  that  he  denies  any  private  ownership  at  ail, 
he  denies  every  kind  of  it,  that  is  to  say  he  advocates  an  ultra  Socialism. 
And  by  quoting  him  as  an  authority  Mr.  Holmes  and  the  singletaxers  march 
over  into  the  camp  of  ultra  Socialism. 

This  is  not  very  creditable  to  Mr.  Holmes  but  the  worst  is  that  we  have 
said  all  this  already  on  October  16.  Poor  Mr.  Holmes.  He  can't  read.  But 
maybe  it  is  different.  Did  you  ever  succeed  in  refuting  a  good,  well  trained 
parrot?  Never  No  matter  what  you  say  against  him,  he  will  always  repeat 
his  few  phrases.   Is  this  the  case  with  Mr.  Holmes?  We  do  not  say  it  is. 

2.  Please  accept  thanks  for  your  frank  ackno-wiedgrement  of  belief  in  the 
extreme  doctrine  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope,  and  of  the!  duty  of  good  Catho- 
lics to  accept  the  decisions  of  His  Holiness  on  all  questions — no  matter  what 
they  may  themselves  think.  Many  Catholics  do  not  accept  that  view,  any  more 
than  many  Presbyterians  believe  in  some  of  the  harsh  features  of  their  old 
chvirch  creed. 

Mr.  Holmes  cannot  read.  Otherwise  he  could  never  maintain  that  our 
reply  to  him  contains  such  a  monstrous  statement.  "We  have  expressly  grant- 
ed to  him  that  the  Pope's  authority  is  confined  to  things  which  regard  "the 
spirit  and  the  future  life,"  and  that  matters  like  the  singletax  problem  come 
under  this  head  on'iy  as  far  as  they  bear  on  faith  and  morals.  AVe  challenge 
:\Tr.  Holmes  to  mention  to  us  a  single  Catholic  who  docs  not  hold  oyr  view 
in  this  point.  If  anyone  doesn't,  he  is  no  Catholic  at  all  any  more.  Or  has  Mr. 
Holmes  in  this  regard  also  learned — certain  anti-Catholic  phrases  which  he 
repeats  in  season  and  out  of  season? — And  what  have  the  Presbyterians 
to  do  with  this?  By  her  divine  Founder,  the  Catholic  Church  has  been  s'o 
v/ell  equipped  with  all  she  needs,  that  she  hasn't  to  look,  over  the  fence  into 
the  Presbyterian  garden  to  see  what  is  good  and  true. 

?>.  His  Holiness  may  say  "Thou  shalt  not  steal,"  and  we  acceiit  it  because  it 
is  in  accoixl  with  our  average  moral  perceptions.  But  as  to  what  constitutes 
private  property  (ethically)  our  views  are  undergoing  a  slow  change. 

It  is  not  His  Holiness  who  says,  "thou  shalt  not  steal"  but  one  that  is  a 
little  higher.  If  Mr.  Holmes  is  a  Christian  he  has  learned  by  heart  the 
Ten  Commandments;  of  God  and  knows  very  well  that  they  did  not  originate 
from  the  Pope  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  It  is  not  our  fault,  if  his 
words  make  the  impression  that  he  clid  not  learn  them  any  too  well.  And 
how  does  he  know  that  our  views  are  undergoing  a  change  as*  to  what  con- 
stitutes private  property?  Such  changes  exist  only  in  the  imagination  of 
those  whose  minds  reside  in  misty  or  stonn-tossed  brains.  (But  for  good- 
ness sake,  Mr.  Holmes,  if  you  want  to  make  a  vain  attempt  at  giving  us  a 
proof  for  your  assertion,  please  do  not  come  a  third  time  with  St.  Gregory.) 

4.  And  church  leaders  of  all  denominations  usually  lag  behind  public 
opinion  in  this  respect. 

And  do  you  mean  to  say  that  the  pope  is  to  look  to  the  phantom  god- 
dess of  Public  Opinion  to  find  out  what  is  right?  And  do  you  mean  to  say 
that  we  Catholics  have  to  sit  in  judgment  over  the  pope  and  see  whether  he 
still  agrees  with  what  you  are  pleased  to  call  Public  Opinion?  Do  you  mean 
to  insult  us  in  our  sacred  conviction  of  the  character  of  the  Papacy?  Do  you 
mean  to  insinuate  that  it  v/ould  be  better  for  u^  to  run  after  your  home-made 
public  opinion  than  to  follow  the  Head  of  our  Church?  If  you  do  not  mean  it. 
why  do  you  use  such  language?  Are  you  unable  to  say  what  you  wish  to 
say?  In  that  case  don't  be  too  proud  but  take  a  good  night  school  course  in 
English. 

5.  It  was  so  In  the  anti-slavery  struggle,  most  of  the  religious  leaders  at 
i.iie  time  looking  upon  the  slaves  as  rightful  private  property.  Yours  truly, 

HOWARD  M.  HOLMES. 

To  reproach  the  Church  of  the  first  ages  with  not  having  condemned 
slavery  in  principle,  and  with  having  tolerated  it  in  fact,  is  to  blame  it  for 
not  having  let  loose  a  frightful  revolution,  in  which,  perhaps,  all  civiliza- 
tion would  have  perished  with  Rora?n  society.  Religious  equality  was  the 
negation  of  slaverv  as  it  was  practiced  by  pagan  society.  The  Church  made 
the  enfranchisement  of  the  slave  an  act  of  disinterested  charity.    Tfee  very 


22 


chair  of  St.  Peter  was  occupied  by  men  who  had  been  slaves? — Pius  in  the 
second  century,  Callistus  in  the  third.  Catholic  Encyclopedia,  Vol.  XIV, 
pp.  36-39  for  statements  and  references  to  prove  that,  if  not  the  only,  at  least 
the  principal  cause  of  the  disappearance  of  slavery  at  all  times,  is  Chiisti- 
anity  and  Catholicity  acting  through  the  authority  of  its'  teaching  and  the  in- 
fluence of  its  charity. 

li.     'Sot  lor  iiul>Iication  -unless  j-ou  need  it  for  a  filler.H.  M.  H. 

We  need  it  for  a  filler.  We  never  have  articles  that  attract  any  attention 
from  anybody.  Especially  the  single  taxers  completely  disregard  our  modest 
publication.  This  "filler"  again  shows  to  our  readers  what  kind  of  thinkers 
and  talkers  the  singletaxers  are.  We  also  congratulate  the  Cleveland  Single- 
tax  Club  for  having  such  an  able  secretary.  If  he  cannot  catch  the  mean- 
ing of  two  little  plainly  printed  paragraphs  which  he  may  read  and  re- 
read as  often  as  he  likes,  what  a  mess  will  he  make  of  it  when  he  has  to 
report  the  oral  proceedings  of  a  meeting  which  he  hears  only  once. 

Very  likely  Mr.  Holmes  feared  that  his  argumentation  contained  in  the 
"filler"  will  bring  him  into  hot  w^ater  and  therefore  he  added  the  postscript 
hoping  thereby  to  get  in  his  little  wisdom  and  escape  publication.  We  have 
no  time  for  personal  correspondence  and  Mr.  Holmes  must  be  prepared  to 
have  his  contentions  either  published  or  ignored  altogether. 


A  THIRD  LETTER  OF  MR.  HOLMES,  SECRETARY  OF  THE 
CLEVELAND  SINGLETAX  CLUB 

Editor  Catholic  Bulletin:  ^ 

"You  cannot  agree  with  us  tliat  absorption  of  site  values  (oi,-  what  political 
economists  call  rent)  is  wrong.  Very  well;  let  us  see  if  we  cannot  agree  on  ine 
fiscal  side  of  the  single  tax. 

•  No,  indeed,  we  cannot  agree  with  you  on  this  point.  But  above  all  we 
cannot  agree  with  you  if  you  say  that  private  ownership  in  land  is  a  bold, 
bare,  enormous  wrong  or  that  all  men  are  entitled  to  an  equal  share  in  the 
bounties  of  God.  Even  leaving  aside  the  religious  question  altogether,  we 
have  already  shown  that  we  cannot  agree  with  you  in  taxing  a  skyscraper  of 
twenty  stories  not  more  than  a  one-story  house  in  the  same  place.  This  is 
the  fiscal  side  of  tlie  question.   But  we  shall  do  you  another  favor. 

In  his  letter  Mr.  Holmes  enumerates  s'ome  ten  points  concerning  taxing 
methods  and  invites  us  to  discuss  them  with  him.  One  or  another  of  them 
has  already  been  mentioned  on  other  occasions.  Others  treat  of  imperfec- 
tions of  our  present  tax  system,  \Vhich  we  readily  grant  to  exist.  But  this 
does  no  mean  that  we  wish  to  adopt  singletax.  (see  pagelo).  Let  us  make 
a  bee  line  for  the  happy  days'  whai  singletax  will  be  introduced,  and  observe 
how  things  must  then  present  themselves. 

Let  us'  suppose  for  a  moment  that  the  State  of  Ohio  has  introduced  single- 
tax.  This  means  that  the  land  owners  alone  defray  all  the  expenses  of  the 
governor  and  all  officials,  etc.  To  forestall  useless  questions  of  the  single- 
taxers, we  state  expressly,  that  the  tax  will  he  adjusted  according  to  tlio 
iiite  value  of  the  soil.  An  acre  in  the  vicinity  of  a  population  center  will 
have  to  pay  proportionately  more  than  one  in  the  open  country.  But  let 
the  reader  mark  well  that  only  the  site  value  counts.  That  is  to  say.  a 
swampy  or  rocky  spot  will  pay  as  much  in  taxes  as  another  equally  large 
area  which  is  in  the  same  neighborhood  or  at  the  same  distance  from  the 
center  of  the  population.  According  to  the  principles  of  the  singletaxers  it 
is  the  population  only  and  exclusively  that  "makes  the  value."  A  water- 
fall which  offers  thousands  of  horse  power,  the  fact  that  coal  or  oil  is  hidden 
under  the  surface,  may  not  be  considered  at  all.  A  gravel  field  and  the  best 
wheat  land,  provided  they  are  in  the  same  locality,  pay  th^  same  tax.  This 
is  only  to  show  to  the  singletaxers  that  we  understand  their  theory. 


23 


Three  Classes  of  Land  Owners 

As  soon  as  singletax  is  introduced  those  who  own  land  will  be  the  only 
taxpayers.  Now  there  are  evidently  three  class'es  of  land  owners.  There  are 
first  those  who  use  the  land  they  own  merely  for  private  purposes.  T^ey 
possess  a  residence  with  perhaps  a  moderate  lawn  in  front  or  a  back  yani 
or  kitchen  garden  in  the  rear.  But  they  do  not  think  ofMnaking  money  bv 
this  real  estate.  Such  land  owners  we  s'hall  call  residents. 

A  second  class  are  the  farmers.  They  work  their  soil  to  obtain  a  revenue. 
Buildings  and  similar  improvements  are  means  to  this  end.  They  need  a 
proportionately  large  area  to  have  a  moderate  income. 

The  third  class  are  the  indnstrials.  They  use  the  soil  simply  as  the 
necessary  ground  for  their  enterprises.  They  erect  factories,  establish  mines 
and  steamship  lines,  build  railroads,  etc.  Here  belong  also  the  owners'  of 
hotels,  apartment  houses  and  office  buildings  and  the  whole  clasfe  of  any  kind 
of  landlords. 

In  many  cases  a  person  may  be  in  several  of  these  classes.  Consequently 
the  singletax  may  affect  him  variously.  But  that  cannot  alter  our  deductions. 
The  three  clasfees,  residents,  farmers  and  industrials  are  clearly  distin- 
guishable. 

Under  the  present  system  these  three  classes  pay  a  certain  amount 
of  taxes.  Nor  would  it  be  difficult  to  find  the  aggregate  of  what  each  class 
is  now^  contributing  to  the  expenses  of  the  state.  But  whatever  this  amount 
may  be,  one  thing  i^  sure:  The  introduction  of  singletax  will  bring  a  very 
considerable  reduction  to  the  class  of  the  industrials.  The  sum  they  now 
pay  into  the  public  treasury  will  be  enormously  diminished.  This  is  the 
chief  purpose  Henry  George  had  in  view  when  devising  his  tax. 

The  present  taxes  he  s^ys  work  like  penalty  on  enterprise  and  industr?-. 
"If  I  have  saved  while  you  wasted.  I  am  mulct  while  you  are  exempt.  If  a 
man  build  a  ship  we  make  him  pay  for  his  temerity,  as  though  he  had  done 
an  injury  to  the  state;  if  a  railroad  be  opened,  down  comes  the  tax  col- 
lector upon  it,  as  though  it  were  a  nuisance;  if  a  manufactory  be  erected,  we 
levy  upon  it  an  annual  sum  which  would  go  far  towards  making  a  hand- 
some profit."  (Progress  and  Poverty,  Book  IX,  Chapter  from  which  this  is 
taken  is  in  the  same  strain.) 

To  the  railroad  and  steamship  companies,  therefore,  the  oil  kings,  the 
owners  of  skyscrai)ers  and  coal  mines  will  be  donated  a  s^im,  which  will  go 
far  towards  making  a  handsome  profit.  And  who  will  pay  this  difference? 
Who  is  going  to  make  up  for  the  "handsome  profit'*  which  the  industrials 
will  not  have  to  contribute  any  longer  to  the  public  expenses?  Only  two 
more  classed  of  people  are  taxable  under  singletax,  namely,  the  residents  and 
the  farmers.  The  taxes  of  residents  and  farmers,  therefore  will  increase 
enormously.  They  may  fight  it  out  between  themselves  who  is  to  pay  the 
larger  share. 

Let  not  the  singletaxers  come  and  say  the  farmer^  have  their  land  in  the 
country,  where  the  site  value  is  low.  The  indnstrials  as  a  class  whether  their 
establishments  are  in  the  heart  of  cities  or  in  the  backyroods  will  pay  mnch 
less  than  now;  the  difference  must  come  from  others  which  neces^tates  that 
the  taxes  of  those  "others"  be  raised  no  matter  where  they  live.  There  is  no 
other  way.  If,  however,  the  singletaxers  maintain  that  as  a  matter  of  fact 
the  farmers  will  pay  less  than  they  pay  now,  ^o  much  the  worse  for  the 
residents;  the  burden  will  fall  on  them  alone.  But  factory  and  mine  owners, 
railroads  and  skyscrapers  will  not  pay  the  taxes  they  are  now  paying,  if 
Henry  George's  theory  is  carried  out. 

It  is  really  surprising  that  considerations  as  plain  and  obvious  as  these 
evidently  never  came  to  the  minds  of  the  singletaxers.  To  us  they  makp 
It  sure  that  the  singletax  even  viewed  from  the  merely  fiscal  or  financial 
standpoint  even  without  any  reference  to  religion,  is  utterlv  unjust  and  can 
have  only  disastrous  effects. 


LETTER  OF  MR.  MATT  HAUS 

Dear  Sir: — 

1.  My  attention  has  been  called  to  an  article  on  single  tax  in  your  issue 
of  Oct.  1st,  in  which  you  say  that  land  speculators  would  not  be  put  out  of  busi- 
ness by  the  single  tax,  for  "If  he  could  pay  the  tax,  why  could  he  not  hold  a 
lot  in  the  heart  of  a  growing  city  until  its  price  has  become  tenfold?"  My 
answer  to  that  is,  no  one  could  afford  to  hold  land  out  of  use  if  the  Gevern- 
ment  were  annually  collecting  from  him  all  the  land  was  worth  for  use.  If  he 
kept  it  until  its  value  had  been  increased  tenfold  then  the  tax  would  be  tenfold 
also.  Thus  all  incentive  to  hold  land  for  speculation  would  be  taken  away.  No 
one  would  care  to  hold  land  unless  he  wanted  it  to  live  upon  or  to  do  business 
upon. 

The  selling  price  of  land  is  its  untaxed  value.  As  fast  as  the  tax  is  in- 
creased, the  selling  value  falls.  If  the  annual  tax  were  made  equal  to  tlfe  rental 
value,  the  selling  value  would  disappear. 

Here  is  a  lot,  say  worth  $1,000.  At  5  per  cent  the  rental  value  would  be  $50 
a  year.  Suppose  the  Government  taxes  the  lot  5  per  cent  or  $50.00  a  year.  No 
one  would  be  fool  enough  to  pay  anything  for  the  lot  as  a  purchase  price.  Let 
US/  suppose  the  influx  of  population  and  improvements  which  caused  a  doubling 
of  land  values  without  any  increase  in  taxation.  Then  the  owner  of  this  lot 
could  sell  for  ^1,000.  But  if  the  Government  imposed  a  tax  of  $100.00,  there 
could  be  no  such  purchase  price  obtained.  The  use  of  the  lot  would  be  still 
worth  5  per  cent  of  the  value--$2,00(J — but  no  one  except  a  crazy  man  would 
pay  anything  for  it  to  the  owner  when  he  knew  that  the  Government  would 
collect  the  rental  each  year  as  the  value  went  up  due  to  increased  population, 
location,  ^tc. 

Mr.  Haus*  argument  is  this.  The  value  of  a  lot  is  equal  to  a  sum  of 
money  which  if  put  on  interest  would  bring  the  amount  now  paid  for  the 
rent  of  the  lot  (not  the  rent  of  lot  and  house  but  the  lot  alone).  As  soon  as 
the  value  rises,  on  account  of  the  increase  in  population  or  for  similar  exterior 
reasons,  the  singletax  government  will  increase  the  tax  accordingly.  There- 
fore, unless  one  has  an  actual  use  for  a  lot  he  will  not  buy  or  hold  it  but 
will  rather  leave  his  money  in  the  bank.  Sounds  very  well,  doesn't  it?  But 
it  is  based  on  a  supposition  which  is*  not  always  true.  It  supposes  that  the 
actual  value  of  a  piece  of  property  can  never  be  greater  than  the  sum 
which  would  bring-  the  amount  of  the  rent  or  tax  as  interest.  This  may  be 
correct  in  most  cases,  at  least  under  the  singletax  regime. 

But  take  a  growing  residence  district.  Somepne  owns  a  complex  of 
four  nice  lots,  just  enough  for  an  apartment  house.  He  knows  that  sooner 
or  later  one  will  be  built  in  this  neighborhood.  He  has  sure  Information 
that  there  is  an  energetic  and  enterprising  company  which  already  looks 
for  suitable  places. 

Now  remember  two  things:  First,  that  the  tax  on  such  a  plot,  single- 
tax  i  mean,  is  not  higher  than  if  it  were  improved,  that  it  is  and  remains  as 
high  and  low  as  the  tax  on  the  surrounding  improved  lots,  and  that  the 
prospect  of  a  much  higher  sale  at  some  future  time  cannot  induce  the  ap- 
praisers to  increase  the  tax.  Remember  second,  that  the  apartment  house 
will  bring  an  enormously  larger  rent  than  four  residences  would.  Because 
the  four  residences  would  not  only  have  fewer  stories,  but  could  never  cover 
the  ground  so  completely  as  this  one  establishment.  The  money  therefore, 
which  is  paid  for  these  four  lots  will  bear  an  incomparably  higher  interest 
than  the  money  paid  for  any  four  of  the  house  lots  in  the  same  neighbor- 
hood. In  other  words,  the  owner  of  them  will  be  acting  like  a  good  business 
man  if  he  for  several  years  pays  the  taxes  in  the  expectation  of  a  much 
higher  price  in  the  future— and  all  this  under  the  singletax  system.  Land 
speculation,  though  of  course  greatly  hampered,  is  not  an  absolute  impos- 
sibility where  Henry  George  rules. 

We  have  taken  here  a  residence  district.  If  in  our  article  of 
October  1,  we  accidentally  referred  to  "the  heart  of  a  growing  city,"  we  did 
TiOt  lay  stress  on  this  circumstance.  We  meant  to  emphasize  only  that  even 
under  singletax  some  kind  of  land  speculation  will  remain  pos'sible.  But 
after  all  why  should  not  similar  circumstances  even  in  the  heart  of  a  city, 
especially  a  growing  city,  prevail  on  a  shrewd  business  man  to  engage  in 
similar  speculations. 

To  repeat.  Mr.  Haus'  argument  if^  based  on  the  wrong  supposition  that 
under  no  condition  can  the  value  of  property  for  some  particular  purpose 
be  larger  than  the  sum  \\  hich  brings  as  interest  the  amount  of  rent  which 


•25 


other  properties  in  the  same  neighborhood  will  fetch.  There  can  be  a  vast 
difference  which  the  tax  assessors  will  never  be  able  to  reach. 

AVe  have  taken  as  example  an  apartment  house,  an  instance  of  the 
housing  industry.  Our  case  will  become  still  better  if  we  pass  over  to 
the  other  industries,  as  factories,  etc.  All  these  branches  of  human  enter- 
prise can  make  great  profits  on  proportionately  small  areas.  Is  it  not 
quite  possible  that  a  man  should  keep  a  number  of  house  lots  idle  because 
he  has  good  reason  to  expect  that  some  factory  will  settle  there?  The  fac- 
tory owner  does  not  pay  more  tax  for  an  acre  than  the  modest  house  in  the 
«ame  locality.  He  will  gladly  give  a  higher  price.  (If  the  place  were  im- 
proved, the  factory  would  have  to  pay  for  the  improvements  also). 

Did  Mr.  Haus  ever  stop  to  consider  what  the  word  site-value  means? 
In  our  latest  singletax  article  we  said: 

But  let  the  reader  mark  well  that  only  the  site  value  counts.  That  is 
to  say,  a  swam,py  or  rocky  st)ot  will  pay  as  much  in  taxes  as  another  equally 
large  area  which  is  in  the  same  neighborhood  or  at  the  same  distance  from 
the  center  of  the  population.  According  to  the  principles  of  the  singletaxers 
it  is  the  population  only  and  exclusively  that  "makes  the  value.!'  A  water- 
fall which  offers  thousands  of  hors'e  power,  the  coal  or  oil  hidden  under  ihs. 
surface,  may  not  be  considered  at  all.  A  gravel  field  and  the  best  wheat  land, 
provided  they  are  in  the  same  locality,  pay  the  same  tax. 

To  enlighten  Mr.  Haus  still  more  we  quote  from  the  singletax  platform 
(The  World  Almanach) :  'The  only  value  taken  into  consideration  would 
be  the  value  attaching  to  the  bare  land  by  reason  of  neighborhood,  etc'  . 
taking  for  public  use'  (i.  e.  taxing)  'that  value  which  attaches  to  land  by 
reason  of  the  growth  and  improvement  of  the  community.'  (Let  anyone 
take  the  World  Almanach  and  convince  himself  that  we  are  correct  in  quot- 
ing. The  other  bold  statements  of  this  platform,  for  instance  about  unbur- 
dening the  farmer,  giving  to  everyone  his  own  house,  etc.  are  in  flagrant  con- 
tradiction with  the  principles  of  Henry  George,  aa  our  articles  have  shown.) 
Under  such  circumstances  it  is  not  only  pos'sible  but  very  probable  that  in- 
dividuals or  corporations  will  hold  land  favorable  to  industrial  enterprises 
until  it  will  yield  them  a  large  profit.  Speculators  would  still  hold  natural 
oi)portunities  unused  or  only  half  used. 

2.  If  you  can  think  of  a  better  and  easier  way  to  prevent  land  speculation, 
I'd  be  glad  to  consider  it.  The  withholding  of  valuable  land  from  use  .practi- 
cally lessens  the  size  of  the  globe  for  industrial  purposes,  it  lowers  wages  by 
lessening  opportunities  for  labor,  and  in  agricultural  districts  and  city  suburbs 
i!  sra iters  people  who  should  be  nearer  together. 

Mr.  Haus  ha^  the  genuine  singletax  horror  of  land  speculation.  It  is 
the  only  evil  in  the  world.  Do  away  with  land  speculatoin,  and  the  wages 
will  jump  sky  high.  Involuntary  poverty  will  disappear  (Platform).  Yet  it 
was  land  speculation  that  led  to  the  establishments  of  the  colonies  from 
which  sprang  these  glorious  United  States.  Land  speculation  laid  the  foun- 
dations of  our  state  of  Ohio  and  settled  all  the  states  of  the  West.  We  dare 
say  that  a  very  large  percentage  of  the  houses  of  Cleveland  owes  its  arigin 
to  land  s'peculation. 

We  do  not  deny  the  many  evils  connected  with  it,  nor  do  we  defend  all 
tiie  methods  used  by  the  speculators.  Everything  thought  out  by  men 
and  practiced  by  mortals  is  open  to  abuse.  Sound  policy  will  think  of  how 
to  prevent  the  abuse  while  keeping  the  good  thing  itself. — As  far  as  single- 
taxers can  see  there  is'  only  one  device  ever  conceived  by  a  human  mind 
which  is  without  the  slightest  evil  consequence  and  that  is  singletax. 

In  the  very  last  sentence  of  his  letter  Mr.  Haus  unwittingly  gives  credit 
to  land  speculation  for  its  good  influences?  against  congested  districts,  tene- 
ments and  slums  and  in  the  same  breath  admits  the  reverse  as  an  effect  of 
site  tax.  And  it  is  true  as  we  have  maintained  that  site  tax  will  need  to 
have  people  housed  in  high  buildings  u^ing  little  ground  space — Mr.  Haus 
would  house  us  close  together. 


LETTER  OF  MR.  M.  J.  McGUIRE. 

Editor  of  CathoJic  Bulletin: 

1.  I  have  been  reading-  -with  interest,  rind  not  a  little  aniupemcm, 
series  of  controversal  letters  with  Cleveland  Single  Taxers.  You  assume  lo 
speak  the  Catholic  church  vieAV  on  the  question  at  issue.  Now  when  a  chur>',h 
is  built  it  becomes  the  property  of  those  who  contribute  financially  to  defray  the 
expenses  of  construction,  to  be  correct — Holy 'Name  church  is  the  property  of 
the  members  of  Holy  IJame  parish.  A  very  common  source  of  revenue  for  oper- 
ating and  maintenance  in  vogue  in  many  CathoJic  churches  is  pew  rent.  This 
rental  is  wisely  determined  by  the  advantage  which  the  occupation  of  a  pew 
gives  to  the  pew-holder,  proximity  to  the  altar,  pulpit,  etc.,  the  pews  in  front 
renting  for  more  than  those  in  the  rear,  in  fact  we  generally  find  the  pews  in 
the  extreme  rear  of  the  church  minus  a  name  plate.  Quite  a  single-tax  arrange- 
ment Mr.  Editor,  only  the  Church  is  consistent  in  its  insi.stence  on  r  an  ying 
single  tax  to  its  logical  conclusion. 

We  read  Mr.  ^IcGuire's  letter  "with  not  a  little  annisement."  Pop<^ 
Leo  Xin,  unbekpown  to  Mr.  IMcGiiire,  condemns  the  principle  on  which 
singletax  rests.  Henry  George  writes  an  open  letter  to  the  pope  to  em- 
phasize the  great  difference  between  the  pope's  doctrine  and  his  own.  And  lo 
and  behold,  there  corned  .Mr.  ]McGuire  and  shows  that  the  Church  of  I^o 
XIII  is  singletaxing  the  people  all  the  time.  Do  j^ou  really  think,  Mr.  Mc- 
Guire,  that  all  the  pastors  wiio  partly  support  their  churches  by  pew  rent, 
believe  with  Henry  George  against  Leo  XITI,  that  "private  ]iroperty  in  land 
is  a  bold  bare  enormous  wrong?" 

The  readers  of  the  Catholic  Bulletin  know  very  well,  that  the  single 
taxers  mean  to  tax  every  piece  of  landed  property  according  to  its  value 
— site-value  to  be  sure  Well  there  are  many  cases,  in  which  the  price,  the 
rental,  even  the  tax  can  be  fully  and  justly  determined  by  the  site  value  of 
3  commodity.  This  is  so  whenever  no  other  difference  comes  in  but  the  site, 
the  locality.  But  it  is  simply  stupid  to  talk  of  singletax  in  all  these  cases'. 
Not  only  the  church  pew,  but  also  the  jplace  in  a  theater,  the  stall  in  a  mar- 
ket house,  the  room  pr  rooms  in  an  arcade  building  are  differentiated  ex'^Jv.-' 
lively  by  their  site,  their  «tirroundingsf,^f^cc'^.«sibili.ty  and-  '^o  rorth.  !sor  does 
it  make  the  slightest  difference,  whether  the  building  which  differs  these 
commodities  has  been  erected  with  public  funds  or  by  a  compay^y  or  an  in- 
dividual person.  The  reason  for  the  difference  in  price,  tax,  rei  ;tal,  pew-rent 
or  whatever  name  may  be  chosen,  is  always  the  same.  ' 

What  we  have  against  singletax  is  not  that  it  assesses  according  to 
value,  site-value  included.  There  is  nothing  reproachable  ia  this.  But  tlie 
sinarletax  system  of  Henry  George  is  built  on  the  un-CIiristi?in  and  uiiiiatiir;»l 
assumption  that  private  OT\iiership  in  land  is  a  ])old,  baref  enormous  Avrouir. 
Singletax  will  fall  most  heavily  on  those  ^^h6  use  proporti  onately  the  largest 
area,  the  farmers,  who  at  the  same  time  make  the  prop*yrtionately  smallest 
profit.  Singletax,  according  to  Henry  George  is  to  lessen  the  tax  of  the  own- 
ers of  railroads,  faetoiles,  mines,  steamship  lines  and  to  i  it  the  bulk  of  taxes 
which  they  are  now  paying  oji  others,  Singletax,  by  levyi  ig  the  same  amomit 
OP  the  houselots,  whether  the  houses  are  high  or  low,  <nill  discourage  the 
modest  residence  of  the  workingman  and  induce  him  to  ^'ve  in  a  maiiy-story 
tenement  house  where  the  rent  is  much  lower,  becaus-Athe  tax  for  all  the 
stories  is  not  higher  than  it  w^ould  be  for  one  story.  T^^3se  are  some  of  the 
reasons  why  we  emphatically  condemn  singletax.  B\  the  fact  that  the 
value  of  property,  site  value  included  in  some  way  ent-  "s"  into  the  fixation 
of  the  tax  amount,  does  not  make  it  objectionable.  Srtb  a  gg.'aduatiou  of 
prices  or  rentals  or  whatever  it  may  be  is  very  natural,'«and  suggests  itself 
to  every  man  who  has  common  sense.  It  is  truly  amusingfto  see  IMr.  'McGuire 
exclaim  triumphantly:    Quite  a  singletax  arrangement,  :MiI  Editor. 

Mr.  McGuire  says  in  short:  The  pew-rent  system  of  many  Catholic 
churches  fixes  the  amount  according  to  local  advantages.  The  singletax 
fixes'  the  amount  according  to  the  local  advantages.  Thereiore  the  Pew-rent 
system  is  singletax.  It  is  the  same  conclusion  as  this:  Cijf^cinnati  is  situated 
in  Ohio;  Cleveland  is  situated  in  Ohio;  therefore  Cinciiinati  is  Cleveland. 
Or:  in  the  churches  the  seat^  are  taxed  according  to  ibcation:  in  the  the- 
aters the  seats  are  taxed  according  to  location;  therefore  the  churches  are 
theaters.  < 


2.  Mr.  Smith's  pew  rent  is  not  reduced  because  he  does  not  intend  to  im- 
prove himself  spiritually  by  occupying-  his  pew,  he  does  not  pay  less  because  he 
does  not  use  it,  nor  does  he  pay  more  because  he  does  use  it,  he  pays  the  site 
value  of  the  pew. 

Mr.  Smith's  rent  is  not  reduced  though  he  does  not  make  actual  use 
of  his  pew,  nor  does  he  pay  more,  if  he  uses  it.  For  goodness'  sake,  Mr. 
McGhiire,  does  that  make  tlie  pew  rent  paid  by  him,  a  singletax?  If  you 
rent  a  room  in  a  rooming  house  or  hotel,  you  pay  your  money,  whether 
you  occupy  it  or  not,  nor  do  you  pay  more  if  you  live  in  it  all  the  time?  does 
that  make  an  ordinary  rooming  house  or  a  hotel  a  singletax  concern?  This 
is  the  same  wrong  conclusion  as  the  one  mentioned  just  before, 

Mr.  McGuire  has  another  thing  in  view.  Here  is  the  gist  of  one  of  Henry 
George's  great  sayings,  quoted  more  than  once  in  the  course  of  this  corre- 
spondence. If  a  man  owns  a  strip  of  land  on  the  lake,  he  has'  to  pay  a 
certain  amount  of  taxes  on  it;  but  il  he  actually  uses  it,  if  for  instance,  he 
builds  himself  a  ship  and  constructs  a  landing  bridge,  hires  men  and  starts 
a  flourishing  shipping  business,  we  make  him  pay  extra,  by  assessing  an 
extra  amount  on  his  increased  revenue.  The  singletaxers  j^'ould  not  do  that. 
"We  do  not  tax  industry,"  they  say.  Very  well.  As  remarked^  above,  the 
bulk  of  the  taxes  now  paid  by  the  richest  men  will  have  to  be  paid  by 
others.  The  richest  men  will  practically  go  scot-free.  This  is  one  of  the 
most  glaring  points  of  injustice  necessarily  connected  with  singletax. 

But  neither  do  we  tax  industry  as  such.  The  idea  should  be  clear.  A 
tax  is  a  contribution  towards  the  maintenance  of  public  order,  graded  accord- 
ing to  the  interest  which  the  individual  citizens  are  supposed  to  have  in  the 
existence  of  such  public  order.  Now,  the  man  with  the  strip  of  land  plus  the 
flourishing  shipping  business  certainly  has  a  much  greater '^interest  in  the 
existence  and  maintenance  of  public  order  than  the  man  with  the  strip  of 
land  only.  It  is  therefore  just  to  assess  him  higher,  and  it  would  be  un- 
just not  to  raise  his  assessment — not  indeed  on  account  of  the  strip  of  land, 
nor  on  areoimt  of  his  industry  but  for  the  simple  reason  that  he  MUST 
be  presume^&to  require  in  a  great  varfety  of  ways,  much  more  of  government 
protection.  Vhe  advantages  of  public  order  are  a  peremptory  necessity  for 
every  business.  The  expenses  for  the  maintenance  of  public  order,  therefore, 
belong  to  the  Nordinary  and  natural  expenses.  Anyone  who  wants  to  open 
any  kind  of  bus>iness  must  be  prepared  to  pay  them.  It  would  be  a  fraud  to 
burden  them  on  5thers. 

We  have  to  mention  one  more  point.    It  is  the  crime  of  crimes. 

Suppose  Mr.  S^j^ith  has  the  unholy  thought  of  subletting  his  pew  to  Mr. 
Erown,  at  an  enhanced  rental,  instead  of  occupying  it  himself.  "Multiply 
these  subrentals,  eaqh  with  a  profit,  by  a  thousand,  increase  the  demand  for 
pews  enormously,  Mk  Editor,  and  we  are  just  beginning  to  perceive  to  what 
an  impious,  unjust,  irlrational  condition  this  system  or  rather,  lack  of  system, 
lor  which  you  so  stouvtly  hold  a  brief,  has  led  us."  Mr.  McGuire's  hair  stands 
on  end  atf  the  sight  of  such  an  abomination.  "Increase  the  demand  for  pews 
enormously."  Not  an  Vasy  matter,  ISlv.  McGuire.  Mr.  Smith  has  not  built  the 
church  and  will  find  it  hard  to  increase  the  demand  for  pews  beyond  the 
size  of  the  parish.  \ 

But  let  us  be  seri<ius.  Mr.  McGuire  has  adroitl/  chosen  his  instance,  the 
pew  rent,  because  in  at  are  bound  up  two  things  widely  different  from  each 
other:  the  propertijJor  revenue  feature  and  the  sacredness  of  all  that  per- 
tains to  religion.  A^  far  as  the  revenue  is  concerned,  it  matters  absolutely 
nothing,  ^hether  tl\e  amount  charged  for  the  pew^  is  paid  by  Mr.  Smith 
or  Mr.  Brown.  The  trustees  will  not  bother  their  head  about  it,  as  long  as 
they  get  the  five  dollars.  The  pastor  will  greatly  prefer  to  see  the  pew  filled 
Sunday  after  Sumlay  by  the  excellent  Brown  family.  In.  the  whole  parish 
nobody  will  be  worrying  that  the  "advantages  the  whole  parish  is  respon- 
sible for"  go  to  someone  els'e. 

The  fact  is  that  Mr.  Smith  does  not  sell  what  belongs  to  the  parish;  he 
never  claimed  to  have  bought  the  pew  itself.  But  he  justly  thought  that  the 
right  of  using  it  had  been  acquired  by  him.  Wliat  he  transfers  to  Mr.  Brown 
was  entirely  his,  naniely,  not  the  pew  but  the  right  of  occupying  it.  He 


2S 


makes  money  simply  by  disposing  of  what  he  has  acquired  by  paying  his 
own  hard  cash. 

So  there  is  no  difficulty  as  far  as  the  revenue"  or  money  question  goes. 
If  any  comment  is  roused,  it  will  be  on  the  score,  of  the  sacredness  of  the 
object.  In  fact  a  traffic  in  church  pew  rentals  would  be  frowned  upon  by 
the  whole  congregation.  A  similar  traffic  in  theater  seats  or  grand  stand 
places  would  meet  with  no  objection.  The  fact  that  the  whole  congregation 
built  the  church,  that  it  may  be  said  to  be  owned  by  the  congregalion,  makes 
no  difference  at  all,  a^  we  have  seen  before.  Should  it  be  noticed  that  pews 
have  been  rented  to  persons  who  evidently  do  not  think  of  ever  occupying 
them,  there  are  very  simple  means  to  prevent  such  an  abuse. 

Now  Mr.  McGuire  means  to  s'ay  this:  The  whole  earth  is  like  one 
wide  church.  Its  various  sections,  called  homesteads,  farms,  lots,  unused 
acres  of  Wheatland,  etc.  are  the  pews.  Under  the  present  system  s'ome 
of  the  "pew  holders"  either  do  not  use  their  pews  themselves  or  go  so 
far  as  to  sublet  them  to  others  at  a  rental  much  higher  than  they  have  to 
pay  thems'elves.  This  Mr,  McGuire  thinks  is  wrong,  as  wrong  as  it  is  for 
Mr.  Smith  to  either  leave  his  pew  empty  or  sublet  it  with  profit  to  :Mr. 
Brown.  But  there  is  in  this  case  no  sacredness  of  the  object  which  could 
fill  us  with  religious  awe.  So  why  should  we  find  fault  with  this  system 
prodded  only  that  there  be  no  flagrant  abus'es.  Should  abuses  occur,  should 
the^actual  possessors  seriously  threaten  the  general  welfare,  the  public 
authority  has  the  power  to  apply  a  remedy.  It  makes  no  difference  whether 
the  soil  is  private  or  public  proper^p'.  Renting  and  rerenting,  letting  and 
subletting  will  remain  a  correct  kind  of  business.  There  would  be  letting 
and  subletting  of  theater  seats,  of  gardens,  of  farmland,  even  if  the  single- 
taxers  had  succeeded  in  dispossessing  all  the  present  land-owners. 

Mr.  McGuire's  letter  is  a  shot  into  the  air.  He  does  not  try  to  give  a 
proof  for  the  supposition  underlying  all  ramblings,  namely,  that;  "private 
ownership  in  land  i^  a  bold,  bare,  enormous  wrong.r-  Q^r^^  stand  in  this 
matter  is  the  stand  of  the  mankind  /t)i  all  centuries,  of  the  Eiuie,  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  If  a  workingman  saves  money,  buys  a  modest  house  and  of 
course  calls  himself  its  owner,  he  commits  a  bold,  bare,  enormous'  wrong 
according  to  the  singletaxers.  According  to  Leo.  XIII  the  he  use  and  lot  is 
as  much  at  his  disposal  as'  were. his  wages,  because  it  only^  represents  his 
money  or  wages  in  another  form. 


LETTER  OF  MR.  W.  Q.  RADCLIFFE 

Mr.  McGuire  did  not  see  fit  to  reply  to  our  answer.  But  he  has  found 
a  champion  in  Mr.  Wm.  Q.  Radcliffe.  Some  points,  of  his  letter,  it  may  be 
useful  to  refer  to. 

1.    In  your  reply  to  Mr.  McGuire  of  March  17  you  say:  •  / 
'If  a  workman  saves  money,  buys  a  modest  house,  and,  of  course,  calls  him- 
self its  owner,  he  commits  a  bold,  bare,  enormous  wrong-,  according-  to  the  sin- 
gletaxers.' 

"Unwittingly,  you  mis-state  what  sing-letaxers  say.  A  house  is  a  product 
of  labor.  Therefore,  a  house  Is  rightfully  a  subject  of  private  property.  Evi- 
dently you  do  not  understand  the  singletax  philosophy." 

REPLY:  Calling  oneself  the  owner  of  a  house  we  understand  in  the 
sens'e  which  attaches  to  such  a  phrase  under  our  system  df  ownership.  If  a 
person  says  he  owns  a  house,  he  means  that  he  owns  both  the  house  and  the 
lot  on  which  it  stands.  This  latter  point  we  have  in  view  above  all,  since 
we  try  to  refute  the  opposite  doctrine  of  the  singletaxers".  The  workingman 
who  has  bought  the  house  with  his  savings  owns  the  lot,  and  owns  it  fully 
and  by  right,  the  same  way  as  he  owned  the  money  which  he  paid  for  it. 
Tt  is  just  this  private  property  in  land,  this  ownerhsip  of  the  lot,  which 
Henry  George  con4emns  as  strongly  as  he  can.  His  very  words  are:  "Private 
ownership  in  land  is  a  bold,  bare,  enormous  wrong"  (Progress  and  Pov- 
erty, VII,  3.)  This"  has  been  set  forth  most  clearly  in  our  first  instalment 
of  F.  Betten's  address  (Our  No.  96— May  14th,  1915).  Do  we  mis-state 
what  singletaxers  say,  when  we  maintain  that  acc9rding  to  them  the 


•workingman  who  buys  himself  a  house  with  his  savings  and  calls  it  hi^ 
own  commits  a  bold,  bare,  enormous  wrong? 

We  know  very  well  that  the  singletaxers  allow  a  man  to  really  own 
what  they  style  the  product  of  labor,  and  if  Mr.  RadclifEe  will  take  the 
trouble  of  going  over  our  singletax  correspondence  he  will  not  find  one 
place  where  we  ^eak  otherwise.  Evidently  we  understand  singfetax 
philosophy. 

2.  '*!  advise  you  to  read  Henry  George's  able  and  respectful  letter  to  Pope 
Leo  XIII." 

REPLY:  Why  should  we  read  It?  to  be  "converted"  by  it?  No,  sir. 
For  us  the  pope  sneaks  the  last  word  on  such  questions.  You  might  just 
as  well  imite  us  to  read  a  treatise,  of  Henry  George  or  yourself,  purport- 
ing to  prove  that  twice  two  is  five.  We  have  explained  the  Catholic  stand- 
point especially  xa.  our  answer  to  a  letter  of  Mr.  Holmes,  Secretary  of 
the  Cleveland  Singletaxers'  Clu'b,  in  our  number  of  Dec.  10,  1915.  Mr. 
Radcliffe  has  not  read  this.  How  able  H.  George's  letter  to  the  pope  is — 
to  sey  nothing  of  the  overbearing  pride  manifested  in  it — is  shown  on  p.  7. 
A  study  of  that  chapter  will  do  Mr.  Radcliffe  a  great  deal  of  good. 

3.  "Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  we  have  equal  rights  to  the  use^of 
the  earth,  and  that  any  legral  distribution  of  land  which  offends  against  wiis 
principle  of  equal  rights  offends  God's  moral  law." 

We  say  first:  I^t  Mr.  Radcliffe  or  any  other  singletaxer  come  and 
rrove  it. 

So  far  it  has  only  been  affirmed,  never  proven.  The  reason  is  evident; 
T^o  proof  for  it  is  possible.  No  singletaxer  has  ever  to  our  knowledge,  as 
mtiqh  as  attempted  to  offer  an  argument  for  it.  They  confine  themselves 
to  mere  statemp;!?/^^;.- 

Secondl>\:  if  this  were  true  of  land,  it  would  also  be  true  of  all  other 
.  things,  nay  tr^.ier  even,  because  bread  and  clothing  is  more  necessary  to 
man  than  that^be  should  call  a  patch  of  land  his  own.  From  their  unproven 
assertion  that  Vs  Henry  George  puts  it)  a^l  men  are  equally  entitled  to  the 
use  of  land,  tht\  singletaxers  infer  that  land  cannot  be  owned  by  any  indi- 
vidual, but  mustVbe  public  property.  Now,  if  all  men  were  equally  entitled 
to  the  use  of  la:id,  they  would  also  be  equally  entitled  to  the  use  of  all 
other  creatures  up'pn  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  consequently  nothing  could 
ever  become  the  private  property  of  any  individual.  Thus  the  principles 
of  the  singletaxers  Necessarily  lead  to  an  ultra-Socialism. 

What  is  true  inf  this  much  vaunted  equality  of  rights  is  that  all  indeed 
have  the  right  not  to  be  prevented  by  immoral  means  from  acquiring  any 
of  the  world's  good^.  This  applies  to  movable  property  as  well  as  to  the 
surface  of  the  earth  and  the  treasures  hidden  under  it,  as'  far  as  they  are 
really  subject  to  and  capable  of  private  ownership. 

Let  not  Mr.  Radcliffe  say  that  many  of  the  land  speculators  in  fact  use 
Immoral  means.  By  saying  this,  he  would  transfer  the  debate  to  another 
realm.  There  would  no  longer  be  the  question  whether  everyone  who  call^ 
a  spot  of  ground  hi%  own — as  much  his  own  as  his  pocket  knife  or  his  auto — 
thereby  is  a  robbei/  and  thief;  but  only  whether  he  acquired  it  in  the  right 
way.  This  question  is  the  same  for  all  kinds  of  property,  for  the  auto  and 
the  pocket  knife  and  the  printing  'press  as  much  as  for  the  acres  of  land 
he  may  happen  to  hold.  We  do  not  find  fault  with  the  singletaxers  if  they 
maintain  that  property  in  land  may  not  have  been  acquired  by  blameless 
methods,  but  because  they  deny  that  any  man  can  hold  and  ever  has  held  as/ 
his  property  any  part  of  the  soil.  The  singletax  club  of  Cleveland  main- 
tains that  "private  property  in  land  is  a  bold,  bare,  enormous  wrong." 
This  at  least  has  been  stated  by  Mr,  O.  K.  Dorn,  treasurer  of  the  club  in  a 
letter  of  August  3,  1^15,  and  has!  not  been  contradicted  since.  Let  Mr.  Rad- 
cliffe read  our  articles  in  the  issues  of  August  6  and  20,  1915. 


30 


FROM  TWO  OTHER  LETTERS 


''What  specitir-d  statement  of  Henry  Cleorg-e  do  you  object  to?" 

If  you  had  read  even  superficially  our  long  correspondence  with  the 
prominent  singletaxers  of  Cleveland,  you  would  know  that  we  object  to  his 
whole  system. 

"How  can  rig'hteousness  come  on  earth  while  we  encourage  those  who  hold 
land  out  of  use  and  discourag-e  those  who  use  land?  etc." 


Righteousliess  will  come  on  earth  if  all  will  combine  in  following  out 
the  teachings  of  Leo  XITI  'in  his  Encyclical  on  the  condition  of  labor. 
Henry  George  saw  fit  to  write  an  extra  pamphlet  to  oppose  this  doctrine. 

See  on  this  point  what  was  said  in  reply  to  Mr.  Dom,  p.  13. 

"Under  singrletax  there  would  be  no  encourag-ement  to  hold  land  idle  nor 
tax  for  using:  land  and  righteousness  would  be  here." 


This  is  in  the  same  strain  as  the  foregoing.  It  is  the  usual'  superficiality 
of  the  singletaxers.  They  completely  overlook  the  evils  of  s^ngletax,  a  few 
of  which  are  enumerated  on  p.  27.  And  granted  even  that  there  would  be 
no  idle  land  any  more,  there  will  remain  (a  thousand  weapons  in  the  hands 
of  those  who  are  desirous  of  plundering  tneir  neighbor,  especially  the  vastly 
increased  financial  power  of  manufacturiiig;  mining  and  similar  concerns. 
Even  under  the  present  system  it  is  not  Jthe  land  compani( 
the  enormous  fortunes.  "Righteousness  ■'ould  be  here 
Yes,  introduce  singletax,  and  there  will  W  no  cheatini 
no  adulterating  of  food  and  other  artic^s,  no  for? 
liocketing,  no  highway  robbery,  no  safelbl owing, 
as  soon  as  the  system  described  in  our  qutii 
ruary  18  will  have  been  introduced.  (See) 


Mr.  Holmes,  the  secretarv  of  the  Clei 
He  is  delighted,  too.   He  writes: 


"Dear  Sir: — Single  Taxers  are  delighted  bi 
and  especially  by  his  statement  that  the  sinj 
cannot  be  merely  done  away  with  by  attacks"^ 
distribution  of  wealth  and  by  a  .iust  system  ol 
idea," 


Certainly,  it  contains  a  very  wise  idea.  Al 
of  C.  V.  has  this  idea?  It  is  an  idea  as  old  as  hu^ 
ing  to  over-reach  a  fellow-man.  But  we  believe 
admitting  that  it  is  Leo  XIII  who  in  an  encyclic 
masterful  way  in  the  document  just  mentioned, 
refutation    of     socialism    and  semi-socialism 
largest  number  of  its  pages  are  devoted  to  an  e^ 
reform.    Although  it  does  not  treat  directly  of 
Holmes'  to  make  a  careful  study  of  it  with  perfecj 
mend  to  him  the  practical  edition  of  the  encyc 
Program  of  Social  Reform,  B.  Herder.  St.  Louij 
shown  in  our  columns  how  hazy,  confused,  inc^ 
Henry  George's  notions  of  property  and  reform 
been  rendered  entirely  unable  to  appreciate  luc^ 
find  and  enjoy  them  in  Pope  Leo's*  work.  It 
brought  this  out  in  a  visible  form  by  printing  t\ 
of  the  divisions  and  paragraphs  in  the  text. 


"BISHOP  HORSTMAN  A  SINGLETAXER" 

(From  a  Catholic  Bulletin  Editorial,  Dec.  1915) 


After  our  controversy  with  members  of  the  Cleveland  Singletax  Club 
had  been  going  on  for  six  months,  the  Cleveland  singletax  organ,  "The 
Ground  Hog,"  finally  ventured  into  the  lime  light.  It  maintained  that  we 
were  lining  up  "intellectual  argument  and  sophistry"  against  the  good 
singletaxers'  "heart  attitude."  To  quote  a  sentence:  "Economic  truth  and 
justice  is  not  a  question  of  the  intellect;  it  is  a  question  of  l^eart  attitude, 
one  man  to  another." 

It  then  offered  a  surprising  bit  of  Information.  "The  late  Bishop^  Horst- 
mann  .  .  .  was  a  slngletaxer."  .  .  .  "he  believed  in  the  essential  justice  of 
single  tax."  .  .  .  "Bishop  Horstmann  was  a  boyhood  and  lifelong  friend 
of  Henry  George,  and  also  a  very  intimate  friend  of  the  late  Tom  Johnson." 

No  doubt  Bishop  Horstmann  believed  that  land  could  justly  be  taxed. 
But  if  he  had  been  a  singletaxer  he  would  have  left  a  few  words  in  print  to 
help  out  the  Ground  Hog  reporter.  That  the  good  bishop  was  a  s'chool  mate 
of  Henry  George  must  not  be  charged  up  to  him  too  harshly,  he  could  not  help 
it.  The  same  is  applicable  to  Tom  Johnson.  Here  the  singletaxers  may 
use  the  "heart  attitude."  They  Aill  readily  admit  that  it  is  good  Christian, 
doctrine  to  "respect  those  that  differ  from  you  in  opinion,  and  love  your 
enemies." 

Thous'ands  of  Catholics  remember  the  story  often  told  by  the  late 
Bishop  Horstmann  about  his  boyhood  friend  Henry  George.  Speaking  of 
the  danger  in  reading  everything  at  hand,  he  would  refer  to  '^Progress  and 
PoiJflMlHHyLejiry  George'  an/1.  Jiow  upon  meeting  him  in  a  train  he  was 
George  in  '''B  joy  asked  him  if  he  h^d  read  his  book 
kOf  it?  "i)e^"  said  Bishop  Horstmann,  slowly,  "it  has 
qualitJV  ^ice  print — but,  Henry!  there  is  nothing 


^t'  an  equal  amount  of  "convincing  evidence* 
a  singletax  controversy. 


5  for  the  Study  of  the  Social  Question, 
to  Catholic  Social  Literature, 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Central  Verein, 
ilding,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

c  Bulletin,  a  live  paper  for  live  people. 
50c  per  year.  Cleveland  Weekly  Edi- 
shed  1911.  Linus  G.  Wey,  editor.  Address 
Lorain  Ave.,  Cleveland,  O. 


